S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited V. Construction And Design Services, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam [ARB.P. 450/2021]
FACTS:
The parties had entered into a contract for the purpose of undertaking design, engineering, procurement and construction of a dedicated 4 lane corridor for old and differently-abled persons during Kumbh and Magh Mela in Allahabad across Ganga River.
Disputes relating to termination payment arose and the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“Court”) for appointment of arbitrator. The petitioners approached the Court, contending that the seat of arbitration was Delhi as the rules of procedure expressly chosen was of International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, (“ICADR”) Rules, New Delhi.
The respondent however, objected to the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi claiming that courts of Lucknow will have jurisdiction to entertain such an application as the venue of arbitration was Lucknow.
ISSUES:
The question before the Court was whether the seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi in the light that the arbitration has to be conducted in accordance with the Rules of ICADR, New Delhi or whether the same has to be Lucknow, in the light of agreement that the venue of such arbitration shall be Lucknow.
HELD:
The Court relied upon various judgments that distinguished between seat and venue of arbitration and held that reading the agreement entered into between the parties in the instant case, the choice of venue is also the choice of seat.
COMMENTS:
The distinction between the venue and seat of arbitration has been discussed in many judgements prior to this. However, this case lays down that ultimately the text of the agreement will determine whether parties intended the venue to be the seat or for the two to be distinct.
Leave a Reply