Trident Ltd v. Gurulaxmi Cottex Pvt Ltd

          

 
! 

 
#


    $!%&

#  '

( )

%(*+ , 


     
 
 

 


%)  - . %  / 
0 /  

  



 ! 
"



   



# $
 
 ! 
%

& 
'  ! 
"



 

((((
0 /  
+  $1&) 


   

!  
))

*   
  !  
! 
)++,
-"




 
.


! ./
"


  
"


*  "


$!  
"
 
* %


   
!

!





  0 1
 
!


2


!

  

!




 
"


 
   
2
*   
!






$!  
% 
*
!1


3


%

 
* %


   

!

 !
 
) ) 454)

" 
 !

!  
4)

!
%


46 ) 454)
 "
2

*
 


   
%
"


 
!


"



 

 
! 

 



 

    

   !"
*

 


$!  

  

   

!  
))


7
" 
* 


%

!
"


 
   

    

2
*   


 
!



    


 


* *


!

   

*1

 
!


"


 
%
2

$!  
"

!


!






 



 

#$

%
%
2 %

!
% 

%
2
* %

 


* 
*
% 
*

! 
% 



!
!

!"!

!
$!  
% 
*
"
!

 

3 
 

&'

'

()*+

$,%  -,


  "However, the fact that in all the three appeals before us the proceedings were finally held at New Delhi, and the awards were signed in New Delhi, and not at Faridabad, would lead to the conclusion that both parties have chosen New Delhi as the "seat" of arbitration under Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. This being the case, both parties have, therefore, chosen that the Courts at New Delhi alone would have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the fact that a part of the cause of action may have arisen at Faridabad would not be relevant once the "seat" has been chosen, which would then amount to an exclusive jurisdiction clause so far as Courts of the "seat" are concerned."

   


% 



* *


! *

%

*   
 !2
*1

* 
*

!!

21



   


 
"
*1
  2 



3 
  
8 !

 
#2
-  / )9):)94
;*
  
<
 

 
 
& 

  *  
*  
1
!



*   
% 
"
*

=

1


 
% 
*

* 1





"
   
*"



* 

    , 
*  
 
*

"

!!

!
% 
> 



! 




 
"

*  
%
*
?1 * 
*1
*


*  

? 

!

 

 !2

 

!"

!  
4+

!

<

!"


"!
 
*
*$!
   .
!

12
%


? 

2
!2

  
"
0 

!


!

*
 
"
2 !  
"
1
 
 
"

 1

*


  
*  
0 /  
 # ,' %(*+ , 

)
@ 
 2:
   A
:
=
@ 
  *  A
:
=