Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Rajiv Bhatia v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (23 Mar 2017)

“Venue of Arbitration proceedings” need not essentially be a place where “seat of arbitration” is located”

MANU/HP/0106/2017

Arbitration

In facts of present case, pursuant to award passed by Arbitrator in favour of Respondent/decree holder, an execution petition was filed before Court below. Petitioner primarily raised two objections; one with regard to territorial jurisdiction of Arbitrator and other with regard to amounts paid by him from time to time having not been accounted and reflected in statement of accounts by Respondent. Objections filed by Petitioner, have been dismissed and warrants of attachment of his property have been issued. Moot question in present case is whether by referring the matter for arbitration at Chennai, has Respondent violated territorial jurisdiction and conferred the same to an authority, which practically had no jurisdictional authority to adjudicate such claim.

Clause 23(c) of Loan agreement provides that "venue of Arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai."It is not that, seat of Arbitrator is at Chennai, rather it is only venue of jurisdiction that is at Chennai. There is a marked difference between 'venue of arbitration' and 'seat of arbitration'. It is only seat of arbitration which will give territorial jurisdiction and not venue of jurisdiction. "Seat" is place where court or arbitration is located, which will have territorial jurisdiction with regard to case or in matter, whereas, "venue" is place where arbitral tribunal sits to hold arbitration proceedings and this place need not essentially be place "where seat of arbitration is located".

There is a difference between venue and seat and that merely because arbitrator choose to hold arbitration at a venue, which is different than seat of Arbitration where Court situate, it cannot be said that, Arbitrator has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it.

Another contention of Petitioner that, amounts paid by him from time to time have not been accounted and reflected in statement of accounts by decree holder, these matter are not open to challenge in execution petition as executing Court is bound by decree/award of Arbitrator and cannot go beyond it and were required to be adjudicated before the learned Arbitrator.

Relevant : ABC Laminart Pvt. Limited vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, MANU/SC/0001/1989: AIR 1989 SC 1239 and Patel Roadways Limited vs. Prasad Trading Company, MANU/SC/0280/1992: 1991 (4) SCC 270

Tags : AWARD   EXECUTION   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved