Designation of seat and exclusive jurisdiction clauses prevail over mere venue selection in arbitration agreements.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 11th December 2025.

The dispute involved two agreements: a Conveyance Deed dated 11th November 2014, containing Clause 38 which granted exclusive jurisdiction to Courts at Jalandhar and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

A Space Buyer’s Agreement dated 25th July 2005 contained Clause 51 which stipulated that arbitration proceedings be held in Delhi/New Delhi.

The Sole Arbitrator had been appointed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29th August 2024.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Whether the Delhi High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition given that the place of arbitration was fixed in Delhi, while exclusive jurisdiction was vested in Courts at Jalandhar/Chandigarh by agreement.

The court applied the "Seat vs. Venue" principle under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It relied on Cravants Media Private Limited v. Jharkhand State Co. Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Del 5350], which establishes that the intention of parties to fix a 'seat' versus a 'venue' must be gathered from the contract language.

If an agreement stipulates a location for proceedings (venue) but also grants "exclusive jurisdiction" to courts in a different location, the latter serves as a "contrary indicator" that the venue is not the juridical seat.

The court also referenced Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. v. Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. and BGS SGS Soma v. NHPC Ltd. to affirm that the juridical seat determines territorial jurisdiction.

The Court observed that Clause 51 of the Space Buyer’s Agreement, which mentioned Delhi as the location for proceedings, was intended only to fix the "venue" of the arbitration for convenience.

Conversely, Clause 38 of the Conveyance Deed and the conduct of the parties—specifically the fact that the Punjab and Haryana High Court appointed the arbitrator—clearly indicated that the juridical seat was Jalandhar/Chandigarh.

Following the precedent in Cravants Media, the Court reasoned that an exclusive jurisdiction clause acts as a significant "contrary indicator" against the venue being treated as the seat.

Since the parties expressly agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Jalandhar and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, those courts alone possess the authority to hear challenges to the award.

It ruled that the Courts at Jalandhar and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court of jurisdiction, noting that the respondent had already filed a Section 34 petition before the Jalandhar Court.