Designated Arbitral Venue Shall be Deemed Juridical Seat Absent Significant Contrary Indicia

The Petitioner entered into a Concession Agreement (dated September 14, 2018) to operate food outlets at Bhubaneswar Airport.

Following a termination notice and vacation of premises in 2019, disputes arose regarding credit notes and a "wrongful" supplementary bill issued by the Respondent.

An initial arbitration before the Orissa High Court resulted in an award dated August 28, 2023, which partially allowed the Petitioner’s claims but rejected the Respondent’s counter-claim, finding no contractual basis for the supplementary bill.

The Petitioner filed the present Section 11 application for a fresh reference to arbitration, claiming an outstanding balance of Rs. 91,17,025.36 adjusted by the Respondent against said bill.

The Respondent contested the application on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction—asserting Bhubaneswar as the seat—and principles of res judicata.

1. Whether the Calcutta High Court has territorial jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator when the agreement designates Kolkata as the "venue" but confers general jurisdiction to Bhubaneswar courts.

2. Whether the claims are barred by the principles of res judicata, "accord and satisfaction," or the pendency of a Section 34 challenge against the previous award.

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the appointment of arbitrators.

It relied on BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., establishing that where a "venue" is designated for all arbitral proceedings without contrary indicia, it is treated as the "juridical seat".

Following Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., the designation of a seat acts as an exclusive jurisdiction clause for supervisory purposes.

The court applied the "competence-competence" principle and the "eye of the needle" test from SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning and In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, which restricts the referral court's role to a prima facie examination of the agreement's existence.

The Court determined that Sub-Article 22.2.1, designating the "venue" as the Regional Headquarters in Kolkata, must be interpreted as the "seat".

It reasoned that an arbitration clause is a prior, specific clause that takes precedence over general "Miscellaneous" jurisdiction clauses (like Sub-Article 25.1) which apply to suits or non-arbitral matters.

Regarding the Respondent’s objections on res judicata and "accord and satisfaction," the Court noted that such "intricate evidentiary enquiries" into whether claims are deadwood or already adjudicated are outside the limited scope of a Section 11 referral court.

These issues involve weighing the previous award and evidence, which must be left to the arbitral tribunal under the principle of competence-competence.

It further held that the questions of res judicata, limitation, and "accord and satisfaction" are to be decided by the arbitrator.

The Court allowed the application and appointed Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

The Respondent was granted liberty to raise all jurisdictional and admissibility objections before the tribunal.