23 September 2021 | SP Singal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Construction and Design Services | Arb. P. 450 of 2021 | Suresh Kumar Kait J | High Court of Delhi | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4454

The agreement provided that “arbitration shall be held in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi (the “Rules”), or such other rules as may be mutually agreed by the Parties and shall be subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The venue of such arbitration shall be [Lucknow).”

Was the seat of arbitration New Delhi because arbitration was to be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi, or was it Lucknow in the light of agreement that the venue of such arbitration shall be Lucknow?

The Petitioner argued that “venue” does not include the “seat” of the arbitration and since the arbitration had to be conducted in terms of Rules of Arbitration of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi, the seat of the arbitration was New Delhi.

Kait J said that the Supreme Court held in BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC, (2020) 4 SCC 234 that “choice of venue is also a choice of the seat of arbitration.” He also ruled that Para 17.1 of the CADR Rules that made a provision for the seat of the arbitration would come into play with regard to procedure to be followed, only after the arbitration commences before the appropriate jurisdiction of law, which in this case is “Lucknow”. Para 17 of the CADR Rules provide that the “place of arbitration shall be New Delhi or such other place where any of the Regional Offices of ICADR is situated as the parties may agree” and failing any agreement whatever the tribunal determined.

Read the decision here.