Specific arbitration venue designation constitutes the seat, superseding generic contractual exclusive jurisdiction clauses.

The Petitioner challenged an arbitral award (implied) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A Act”)

The Respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the petition on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction

The underlying EPC Agreement dated May 7, 2018, contained two relevant clauses: Clause 26.3.1, which stipulated that the "venue" of arbitration shall be New Delhi

Clause 27.1, which granted exclusive jurisdiction to the courts at Panaji, Goa, for matters arising out of the agreement

Previously, the Supreme Court of India, in SLP (C) 3167/2021, had set aside a Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) order, observed that the arbitration venue was New Delhi, and appointed a Delhi-based sole arbitrator

The Respondent argued that the "venue" in Delhi was distinct from the "seat" and that the exclusive jurisdiction clause for Goa served as "contrary indicia"

Whether the designation of New Delhi as the "venue" in the arbitration clause, coupled with a general exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of Goa, constitutes New Delhi as the "seat" of arbitration for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction under Section 34 of the A Act.

The Court primarily applied the principles established in BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 234, which held that if a place is designated as the "venue" for "arbitration proceedings" (as a whole), it signifies the "seat" unless there is significant contrary indicia

It further relied on Moonwalk Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. S.R. Constructions (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2797), which posits that a specific arbitration venue clause supersedes a generic jurisdiction clause

and JK Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India (P) Ltd. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 596), which summarizes that the seat constitutes the juridical home and determines the supervisory court

The Court analyzed Clause 26.3.1 of the Agreement, noting the phrase "arbitration shall be held" at the "venue" of New Delhi

Applying BGS SGS SOMA, the Court reasoned that the use of "shall be" in relation to the venue, without language limiting the location to mere meetings or hearings, indicates an intention to anchor the arbitral proceedings to New Delhi, thereby elevating it to the "seat"

Regarding the "contrary indicia" argued by the Respondent (Clause 27.1 regarding Goa), the Court held that a specific arbitration clause providing a venue/seat takes precedence over a generic jurisdiction clause that governs the contract as a whole

The Court also took note of the Supreme Court’s prior intervention, which directed the arbitration to be held in New Delhi and appointed a Delhi-based arbitrator, reinforcing the consensus that Delhi was the intended place of arbitration

The Court concluded that New Delhi is the seat of arbitration, superseding the general jurisdiction clause for Goa

The matter was directed to be listed for hearing on merits, with the Registry ordered to requisition the arbitral record