High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/7749/2016disposed of

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd v. M/S Arun Enterprises & ORS

2023-02-09Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan4 pages

" #$%&'()'*+

, )-.$/0)'*)0)/12/3/#')0/4)56#7

66 3 88 9.'(00#%':'/.%.)07#$%'. 8 8 "

;6 838

38 + 6

%& '

()*+ ,) ) % )

% /

00# 1 2 23 !

& ) !

!""

4 5&

8 2 823 : ) )& /) 6 1/63

$ %$ 8 !; ! !""0 )

)& $

$ ) %$ % $

$ ! !"

; & $ % )

$ / % $ $ '

% )

& )

% )

$ )

)

- 9 ) )%8

)

)%8

) /)

:) ) ) )

5 ) )%8 $ <

07(.&/2% /.#'/&(#/0 '/<)#%6#7 )#)=/0700<)#/0.

'/<)#%6#707#$%'. 1!"

=3 =

// #= 88885) 6#7 1!"!"3.

// !-.

9 ) )%8 $ ) '

$ & '

) ;

6 )

$) % ) ) 7 !.1

" #

)

)8% )) )%8 :) ) $

) $ =

07(.&/2%;.>).%.(:')

)

, $%&'

(

)

* %&

(

" *

( ,

$ -

1% ,

$ - *

8885);.>).%.(:')3

) 55. In Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited and Ors. (supra), after clearing the air on the meaning of Section of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the Court in paragraph 19 (which has already been set out hereinabove) made it clear that the moment a seat is designated by agreement between the parties, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, which would then vest the Courts at the "seat" with exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties. 22100.

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.

Courts of the "seat" are concerned.''

>8 )8 % 8 %

:) )

+ $ %

8 %,

)))

#$%&'()'*+

2 ( 3

4 2