CLOSE
02 February 2022 | Hunch Circle (P) Ltd v. Futuretimes Technology India (P) Ltd | AP No 1019 of 2021 & connected petitions | C Hari Shankar J | Delhi High Court | 2022 SCC OnLine Del 361
The parties’ contract fixed the seat of arbitration at Delhi and the venue India. Another clause conferred exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising out of the agreement “especially for granting interim relief and enforcement of arbitral awards” on courts at the place where the main premises of the petitioner is located (which was Gurgaon).
Interpreting these clauses, the court ruled:
The reader may note that in Cars24 Services, the seat was Delhi, but the appointing authority was a court at Haryana; so, the Delhi High Court enforced the clause and declined jurisdiction. See Arjun Sethi 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5343 (highlight here) and Orix Leasing Arb P. 637 of 2019, decided on 23 November 2021.
Read the judgment here.
Categories: Appointment of Arbitrators | BGS Soma | Choice of Seat | Designation of Arbitral Seat | Exclusive Jurisdiction | Party Autonomy | Party Autonomy to Select Appointing Authority | Pathological Arbitration Clause | Place | Place of Arbitration | Seat | Seat of Arbitration | Section 11 ACA | Section 20 ACA | Tests for Determination of Seat | Venue | Venue of Arbitration