• 

Seat Of Arbitration In Indian Commercial Contracts. Detailed Explanation With Case Laws

1. Meaning and Importance of the “Seat” of Arbitration

The seat of arbitration (also called the juridical seat) is the legal home of the arbitration.
It determines:

Which court has supervisory jurisdiction

Which procedural law governs the arbitration

Whether Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies

The regime for challenge, interim relief, and setting aside

The seat is not the same as the venue.

2. Seat vs Venue vs Place of Arbitration

Indian courts consistently hold that once the seat is fixed, it is exclusive.

3. Statutory Framework in India

3.1 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Key provisions linked to seat:

Section 2(2) – Part I applies where arbitration is seated in India

Section 9 – Interim measures by courts

Section 11 – Appointment of arbitrators

Section 34 – Setting aside of awards

Section 37 – Appeals

For foreign-seated arbitrations, only limited provisions apply.

4. Determining the Seat in Commercial Contracts

4.1 Express Designation

When parties clearly specify:

“The seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi”

Courts will strictly enforce it.

4.2 Implied Seat (When Not Expressly Mentioned)

Courts infer seat from:

Named venue + exclusive jurisdiction clause

Governing law of arbitration

Conduct of parties

Institutional rules adopted

5. Jurisdictional Consequences of Seat Selection

5.1 Court Jurisdiction

Only courts of the seat have power over:

Interim measures (Section 9)

Appointment of arbitrators (Section 11)

Challenge to award (Section 34)

5.2 Exclusion of Other Courts

Once seat is determined:

Other courts, even where cause of action arose, are excluded

Prevents parallel proceedings and forum shopping

6. Seat and International Commercial Arbitration

7. Impact of Seat on Enforcement and Challenge

India-seated award → Can be set aside under Section 34

Foreign-seated award → Cannot be set aside in India

Indian courts cannot modify foreign awards

Enforcement only under Section 48 grounds

8. Institutional Rules and Seat

Adoption of rules like:

SIAC

LCIA

ICC

Courts presume seat as specified in rules unless contradicted by contract.

9. Drafting Risks in Commercial Contracts

Common pitfalls:

Using “venue” and “seat” interchangeably

Multiple jurisdiction clauses

Conflicting governing law and seat

Silence on supervisory court

Courts resolve ambiguities but litigation risk increases.

10. Key Case Laws on Seat of Arbitration (At Least 6)

1. Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium (BALCO)

Issue: Applicability of Part I to foreign-seated arbitration
Held: Part I applies only where seat is in India
Significance: Seat is determinative of court jurisdiction

2. Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

Issue: Whether seat confers exclusive jurisdiction
Held: Seat court has exclusive jurisdiction
Significance: Even if cause of action arose elsewhere

3. BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd.

Issue: Venue vs seat distinction
Held: Designated venue without contrary indication = seat
Significance: Presumption in favour of seat

4. Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH

Issue: Conflict between governing law and venue
Held: Seat inferred from conduct and agreement structure
Significance: Emphasised intention of parties

5. Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd.

Issue: Competing references to arbitration place
Held: Seat must be determined from dominant intention
Significance: Mere mention of venue insufficient without clear intention

6. Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma

Issue: Whether “London arbitration” implied seat
Held: London was juridical seat
Significance: Adopted internationally accepted seat principles

7. Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc. v. Union of India

Issue: Venue mentioned but no seat specified
Held: Venue alone does not automatically become seat
Significance: Clarified limits of inference

8. Cairn India Ltd. v. Union of India

Issue: Seat and sovereign arbitration
Held: Seat determines supervisory jurisdiction even in investment disputes
Significance: Reinforced jurisdictional certainty

11. Practical Implications for Indian Corporates

Seat choice affects speed, cost, neutrality

Foreign seat limits Indian court interference

India seat enables greater interim protection

Wrong drafting can trigger multi-court litigation

12. Best Drafting Practices

Model clause (illustrative):

“The seat and juridical place of arbitration shall be Mumbai, India.
The arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

Avoid:

Dual jurisdiction clauses

Ambiguous “place” language

Inconsistent governing law provisions

13. Conclusion

Indian jurisprudence has firmly settled that:

Seat = jurisdiction

Venue ≠ seat

Party autonomy is paramount

Judicial intervention follows the seat

For Indian commercial contracts, careful seat selection and precise drafting are critical to avoid jurisdictional disputes and ensure enforceability.

RELATED Blog

Corporate Law at Afghanistan

Corporate Law at Albania

Corporate Law at Algeria

Corporate Law at American Samoa (US)

Corporate Law at Bangladesh

Corporate Law at Andorra

Corporate Law at Angola

Corporate Law at Antigua and Barbuda

Corporate Law at Anguilla (BOT)

Corporate Law at Argentina