09 March 2021 | Naresh Kanyalal Rajwani and others v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and another | BP Colabawalla J | 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 367

The Bombay High Court has ruled that, in domestic arbitration, an objection that the court does not have jurisdiction because the seat was located somewhere else is a matter of the court’s territorial jurisdiction that could be waived.

An award had been challenged in the Bombay High Court and set aside. No objection as to the court’s jurisdiction was raised. The respondent invoked another arbitration and got another award, which was again challenged. Objecting this time to the court’s jurisdiction, the respondent asserted that only the courts at the indisputable seat of the arbitration (New Delhi) had jurisdiction. Also, under the laws declared in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 234, Section 42 ACA applied only when the seat was not designated.

Rejecting the objection, held that (i) an objection to territorial jurisdiction, if not taken at the earliest opportunity, cannot be raised in subsequent proceedings; (ii) the court had jurisdiction under Section 42 ACA, and (iii) the Supreme Court’s decision in BGS Soma was distinguishable because it was not a case where the objection on jurisdiction was not raised in the first instance but raised in a subsequent application.

See the judgment here.