Courts at Seat of Arbitration Have Exclusive Jurisdiction over Arbitral Proceedings

Our undertakings for long-term impact are an organic extension of our purpose.

They are to employ our deep knowledge of the law beyond the business, the transaction, the deal. To use the opportunities and skills we possess, to reflect on the culture we’re creating. Individually and collectively, these are our efforts to help shape the thinking of our future generations, and arm them with strategies for true, sustainable growth.

Jun 30, 2021

Courts at Seat of Arbitration Have Exclusive Jurisdiction over Arbitral Proceedings

The Supreme Court in M/s. Inox Renewables Limited v. Jayesh Electricals Limited^[1] held that parties by mutual agreement can change the venue/place of arbitration, even if such agreement is not in writing but is recorded in the arbitration award and is not challenged by either party. The Supreme Court relied on the decision in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Limited^[2] to reiterate that selection of a seat by the parties is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of such seat over all matters connected with the arbitration.

[1] M/s. Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1556 of 2021.

[2] BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234.

DISCLAIMER

These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.