Designated venue constitutes juridical seat; Arbitrator retains exclusive jurisdiction over issues of limitation.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator based on a contract dated 20.01.2017

Clause 9.2.5(a) of the Special Conditions of Contract stipulated that arbitration proceedings would be held in Delhi

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via legal notice on 20.03.2023

The Respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction because the contract was executed in Bihar, the stamp paper was purchased there, and the entire scope of work was performed in Bihar

the Respondent contended that the claims were barred by limitation

1. Whether the designation of "Delhi" as the venue in the arbitration agreement, in the absence of contrary indicia, constitutes the juridical seat of arbitration for the purposes of jurisdiction

2. Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, should adjudicate on the issue of limitation

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the appointment of arbitrators

where a venue is designated without any contrary indicia, that venue is treated as the juridical seat

the Referral Court's role is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement

Under the principle of competence-competence, issues such as limitation and "accord and satisfaction" are mixed questions of law and fact reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

The Court reasoned that since Clause 9.2.5(a) expressly designated Delhi as the venue and the agreement contained no "significant contrary indicia," Delhi must be regarded as the juridical seat, thereby vesting the Delhi High Court with jurisdiction

The Court held that its jurisdiction is "extremely circumscribed" and limited to verifying the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement

the Arbitrator, rather than the Referral Court, is the competent authority to adjudicate the plea of limitation and other contentious factual or legal issues

The Court held that Delhi is the juridical seat of the arbitration

all contentions regarding limitation and the merits of the claims remain open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator

The petition was disposed of with a direction to share arbitral costs equally between the parties