Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Carloyn Joyce Tadamala vs Nhpc Limited on 7 May, 2026
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
APHC010667162025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3572]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL NO: 27/2025
Between:
1. CARLOYN JOYCE TADAMALA,, D/O. BISHOP ERNEST P.
KOMNAPALLI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. 96 CEDAR GROVE
DRIVE EXETER, RHODE ISLAND 02822, UNITED STATE OF
AMERICA, ALSO, R/O. H.NO.10-5-391/16/A/I, FLAT NO. 403,
HANGING GARDENS, MITHILA NAGAR, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA
HILLS, HYDERABAD. EMAIL [email protected]
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. GORENTIA
RATHNAKAR.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. ROYAL CITY DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED, (Formerly Royalmindz
Infra Private Limited) Having its registered office at. Flat No. 402, 4th
Floor, Jhaveri Sanghi Residency, H. No. 8-2-467/1, Road No. 5,
Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 034. Represented by its Managing Director,
Satya Venkata Srinivas Brousu.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
1. D S SIVADARSHAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. DEVALAMPALLI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
RESERVED ON : 25.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.05.2026
UPLOADED ON : 07.05.2026
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment/Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment/Order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment/Order? Yes/No
_________________________
JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
_________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
+ COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL NO: 27/2025
% 07.05.2026
# Between:
1. CARLOYN JOYCE TADAMALA,, D/O. BISHOP ERNEST P. KOMNAPALLI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. 96 CEDAR GROVE DRIVE EXETER,
RHODE ISLAND 02822, UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, ALSO, R/O.
H.NO.10-5-391/16/A/I, FLAT NO. 403, HANGING GARDENS, MITHILA
NAGAR, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. EMAIL
[email protected] REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF
ATTORNEY, MR. GORENTIA RATHNAKAR.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. ROYAL CITY DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED, (Formerly Royalmindz Infra
Private Limited) Having its registered office at. Flat No. 402, 4th Floor,
Jhaveri Sanghi Residency, H. No. 8-2-467/1, Road No. 5, Khairtabad,
Hyderabad - 500 034. Represented by its Managing Director, Satya Venkata
Srinivas Brousu.
...RESPONDENT
! Counsel for the Appellant:
1. D S SIVADARSHAN
^ Counsel for the Respondent:
1. DEVALAMPALLI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
< Gist:
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2020 (4) SCC 234
2. 2021 SCC OnLine AP 3114
3. 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4748
4. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3309
5. 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5350
6. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3744
7. 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1405
8. 2022 SCC OnLine ALL 96
9. 2017 (4) SCR 744
10. (2020) 5 SCC 462
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli)
1. The C.O.M.C.A.,is filed by the appellant/ petitioner against the order
dated 01.12.2025 passed in C.A.O.P.No.11 of 2025 on the file of Special
Judge For Trial and Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam,
whereby the Special Court dismissed the petition filed by the
appellant/petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act,
1996 (for brevity „the Act‟) on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner filed
application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 (for
brevity referred to as „the Act‟) seeking an injunction restraining the
respondent from alienating or encumbering, and also to restrain the
respondent and its men from developing or making construction in the
petition schedule property and also seeking further direction to deposit
Rs.9,20,000 (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) before the
Commercial Court, pending adjudication, of the arbitration proceedings.
3. Petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of petition schedule
property to an extent of Ac.4.45Cents in Sy.Nos.139/2, 143/2,143/4 and
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
143/5 of Samanasa Village of Amalapuram Mandal of East Godavari District
and she entered into a registered Development Agreement – Cum – General
Power Of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as DAGPA) vide Document No.
6957/2019 dated 29.10.2019 with the respondent herein for development of
petition scheduled property, with the commercial terms as mentioned in
there. It is further stated that the respondent herein also entered into
agreement of sale dated 27.07.2022 with the appellant/petitioner in respect
of sale of 16 plots that fell to the share of the petitioner for a total
consideration of 9,20,00,000/-.
4. It is further alleged that the respondent committed breach of the
contract by deliberately delaying the construction and contravening the
terms of the DAGPA dated 29.10.2019 as well the Agreement of Sale dated
27.07.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner contends that she requested the
respondent to complete the construction and to allot her share. A notice was
also issued to the respondent on 01.04.2023 about the breach of
development agreement as well as allocation agreement. The respondent
gave reply on 26.04.2023, with all baseless allegations and the respondent
did not deny the fact that the project was not completed. The petitioner has
also sent an email dated 15.04.2023 to the respondent seeking cancellation
of Agreement of Sale dated 27.07.2022 on account of the respondent‟s
failure to handover possession of the development share as per the DAGPA
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
and Allocation Agreement. Subsequently, a legal Notice was also issued on
31.08.2024 to the respondent to execute the sale deeds in accordance with
the Agreement of Sale dated 27.07.2022.
5. The petitioner asserts that the respondent failed to complete the
project within 42 months as agreed upon from the date of approval from the
authorities i.e., 17.03.2025. As the respondent is not evincing interest in
development of petition schedule property and only concentrating on selling
his share of units, which may result in harm and injury, a notice has been
issued to the respondent terminating the DAGPA and nominated Hon‟ble Sri
Justice Challa Kodandaram as an Arbitrator. Hence, an application seeking
order of restraint against the respondent from alienating the petition
schedule property has been filed seeking directions under Section 9 of the
Act.
6. The respondent denying the averments of the petition, filed counter
stating that the project involves construction of residential units and does not
contemplate or involve any commercial activity relating to immovable
property and hence it is not a commercial dispute within the meaning of
section 2(1)(C)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Further, it was contended
that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under
Section 9 of the Act, as Clause 57 of DAGPA expressly provides for
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
resolution of disputes through arbitration, and the petitioner instead of
invoking arbitral mechanism filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act. It is
further contended that the petitioner failed to initiate arbitral proceedings
within the stipulated time of 90 days and therefore, the interim order dated
29.04.2025 is liable to be vacated.
(ii) That apart, the respondent has also raised several other issues
regarding entitlement of the petitioner, since Clause 24 of the DAGPA itself
provides for monetary compensation in the event of delay in handing over
petitioner‟s share of property and also contended that she is not entitled to
the relief sought for in the application in view of Section 41(ha) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963(as amended in the year 2018). According to
Clause 55 of the agreement, 42 months shall commence only from the date
of approval of building plans i.e.,01.04.2023 and original period was not
expired, and it would expire only on 01.10.2026, by which time, petitioner‟s
share of constructed plots would be handed over to her.
(iii) It was further contended that the delay in the project was due to
the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic after entering into DAGPA on
29.10.2019 and the property was converted from agricultural land to non-
agriculture land only on 01.11.2019 and the layout plan was approved on
17.09.2021 and almost a year time was taken for completion of the
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
compaction of site. It was also contended that as per clause 24 of
DAGPA,36 months time is stipulated for completion of project from the date
of sanction of building plan with a grace period of three months and a further
period of three months is provider for obtaining NOC/occupancy certificates.
(iv) It is also denied by the respondent that there is no obligation
under Clauses 6 and 7 of the marketing agreement on the respondent to
purchase units that fell to the share of the petitioner. It was further
contended that the delay attributable to the official authorities of Gram
Panchayat had been attributed to the respondent. Clause 55 of the DAGPA
provides for force majeure events which were beyond the control of
respondent. Hence, such events are to be excluded from computation of the
time period.
7. To the said averments in the counter, petitioner filed her rejoinder and
stated that the dispute is purely commercial in nature, and further stated that
clause 58 of DAGPA stipulates that the Civil Courts in East Godavari District
shall have jurisdiction and excludes all other courts in respect of any
disputes with or in relation to DAGPA and further contended that section 9
of the Act itself is a part of arbitral mechanism and timeline stipulated in
Section 9 of the Act is not applicable to interim orders and is only applicable
to final orders and it was further denied regarding intimation of interim order
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
on 17.09.2025.It is further stated that the project under DAGPA is not an
infrastructure project within the meaning of Section 41(ha) of the Specific
Relief Act and stated that only those projects which are specified in the
schedule as stated in section 20(A)(I) of the Specific Relief Act, fall within
the definition of infrastructure projects. The time limit for completion of
project expired on 17.03.2025 and the respondent cannot contend that time
will expire only on 01.10.2026, and she also denied the delay on her part in
acting as per the terms of the DAGPA.
8. Based on the above pleadings and submissions, the Special Court
framed the following points for determination:
a. Whether the dispute is commercial in nature?
b. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with this application?
c. Whether petitioner is entitled to interim injunction restraining respondent
from alienating petition schedule property pending final adjudication of
dispute pursuant to arbitration?
d. Whether petitioner is entitled to injunction restraining respondent from
developing or constructing and from entering into any agreement with third
parties in respect of the final adjudication of the dispute?
e. Whether respondent can be directed to deposit Rs.9,20,00,000/- (Rupees
Nine Crores And Twenty Lakhs Only) before this Court till final adjudication
of dispute pursuant to the arbitration?
f. To what relief
9. Based on the above points for determination, the Special Court held
that the dispute is commercial in nature. However, while answering Point
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
No.2, the Court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
application. In view of the said finding, the Court held that Point Nos.3, 4
and 5 need not be determined by the Court. Consequently, under Point
No.6, the application was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding
that the parties had clearly intended that Hyderabad shall be the seat of
arbitration.
10. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Court, the appellant/petitioner
filed the present appeal alleging that the Court dismissed the application
filed under section 9 of the Act holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction to
decide the issues is contrary to law, facts, legal events and improper
exercise of its jurisdiction. As the respondent has not even raised the
argument of territorial jurisdiction/place of suing at the first instance, the
Special Court ought not to have dismissed the petition, as the said plea was
neither taken in the counter nor grounded in any of the pleadings. Thus, the
respondent is precluded from raising such a contention during the course of
hearing.
11. It was also contended in the grounds that the Commercial Court
materially erred in disregarding Clause 58 of DAGPA, which clearly and
categorically states that in respect of matters/disputes arising out of in
connection with or in relation to this DAGPA, „only the civil courts in East
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
Godavari District shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts‟.
In the DAGPA, it is a contra indicia as observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court
in the judgment reported in BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs NHPC Limited1.
Clause 58 of DAGPA is also an ouster of jurisdiction as it not only state that
the civil courts in East Godavari District have jurisdiction but also excludes
all other Courts, as such, the governing law and the seat is of the Courts of
East Godavari District. The finding of the trial court that the seat of arbitral
proceedings is Hyderabad has the effect of re-written of the agreement and
also clause 58 will be rendered otiose and redundant.
12. It was further contended that in the case of KEI-Rsos Petroleum and
Energy Pvt. Ltd., vs. R.A.K.Ceramics (I) Pvt. Ltd2, this Hon‟ble Court
relied upon the ouster of jurisdiction clause similar to that of clause 58 of
DAGPA to hold that the Court has jurisdiction over the proceedings arising
out of agreement including arbitral proceedings. On these grounds and
placing reliance on several Judgments, the appellant sought to set aside the
order dated 01.12.2025 in C.A.O.P.No.11 of 2025 and to allow the said OP.
13. The respondent herein filed counter replying to the grounds raised by
the appellant/ petitioner contending that the finding of the trial court that it
lacks territorial jurisdiction is neither perverse nor arbitrary but is a reasoned
1
2020 (4) SCC 234
2
2021 SCC OnLine AP 3114
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
explanation based on express stipulation in the arbitration clause fixing the
seat of arbitration and also in view of the settled legal principles. As such,
seeking re-appreciation of the settled legal principles under the guise of the
present appeal is impermissible under law. The respondent also denied the
averment that the respondent did not raise objection of territorial jurisdiction
at the first instance and contended that the issue of lack of jurisdiction has
been extensively argued and supported by settled legal precedents during
the hearing and there can be no estoppel, waiver or acquiescence against
law, particularly, when the court itself lacks jurisdiction.
14. It is further contended that Clause 58 of DAGPA pertains to the civil
courts‟ exercising jurisdiction over non-arbitral disputes arising out of the
agreement, whereas Clause 57 expressly and unequivocally governs
arbitral disputes by fixing seat of arbitration at Hyderabad and the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the judgment reported in BGS SGS SOMA JV‘s case (Supra
1), categorically held that once the seat of arbitration is designated, it
operates as an exclusive jurisdiction clause for all applications arising out of
arbitral proceedings, irrespective of any other Civil jurisdiction clause and
clause 58 does not constitute a „Contra Indicia‟ so as to dilute or override
the express stipulation of seat under Clause 57, and both clauses operate
indistinct and mutually exclusive fields. As such, the commercial court has
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
correctly applied the law by invoking the arbitration clause while adjudicating
jurisdiction under the Act.
15. With regard to the contention that Clause 58 constitutes an ouster of
jurisdiction, it is submitted that the said clause expressly refers only to the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts in East Godavari District in respect of civil
proceedings not governed by arbitration. The governing law and seat of
arbitration are not determined by civil jurisdiction clause but by the
arbitration clause itself which categorically provides that „arbitration
proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad‟.
16. By the authoritative Pronouncement of Judgment of Hon‟ble Apex
Court in BGS SGS SOMA JV (Supra 1), the Hon‟ble Apex Court
categorically held that once the seat of arbitration is selected or mentioned
in the agreement, such selection amounts to an exclusive jurisdiction clause
for supervisory jurisdiction of the courts at the seat of all arbitral
proceedings. By placing reliance on various judgments of Hon‟ble Apex
Court, it is contended that clause 58 cannot be construed as an ouster of
arbitral jurisdiction, nor it can override or misplace the expressly agreed seat
of arbitration and contended that the appellant intended to equate civil court
jurisdiction clause with an arbitral jurisdiction is contrary to settled law and is
liable to be rejected.
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
17. It was also contended that the averment of re-written the contract or
that clause 58 has been rendered in otiose is wholly unfounded stating that
clause 57 governs arbitral disputes for the proceedings initiated under the
Act, whereas clause 58 governs non – arbitrable civil disputes arising under
the agreement. As such, clause 58 continues to have full force and effect in
respect of matters not subjected to arbitration. As such, the plea of
redundancy or rendering the clause meaningless is unfounded.
18. With regard to the averment that the commercial court erred in
distinguishing the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in KEI-Rsos Petroleum
and Energy Pvt. Ltd (Supra 2), it is contended that the Clause is materially
different from Clause 57 of the subject DAGPA, inasmuch as it merely
referred to the place of arbitration without any mandatory designation of a
juridical seat or anchoring of arbitrary proceedings thereto, and the court on
facts found that the parties had intended to designate a juridical seat. Thus,
clause 58 cannot override clause 57 in the present agreement. As such, the
contention that clauses are similar in nature is also denied. The respondent
also placed reliance on various judgments to support his contentions that
once a seat is designated it operates as an exclusive jurisdiction,
irrespective of the presence or absence of any other civil jurisdiction clause
and clause 58 of the DAGPA on hand does not intend to dilute the
applicability of settled law regarding the seat of arbitration is concerned. It is
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
also contended that the ouster clause akin to clause 58 of DAGPA is legally
misconceived and untenable for the reason that those two clauses are
distinct and does not operate as contra indicia so as to nullify clause 57 and
also referred to various judgments on the point that Hon‟ble Apex Court has
expressly held that designation of a seat of arbitration confers exclusive
jurisdiction upon the courts of the seat. Any judgments of High Court relied
upon by either party carry only persuasive value and must necessarily yield
to the binding precedents of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and further contended
that all the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court consistently affirm the
principle that the designation of the seat of arbitration confers exclusive
supervisory jurisdiction upon the courts at the seat and that the grounds
raised are wholly misconceived, irrelevant, and were denied in toto which
are nothing but traversing into the merits of the dispute. The commercial
court has rightly and consciously refrained from examining the merits of the
matter after recording its finding of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain
an application under section 9 of the Act.
19. Basing on the above pleadings, the respective counsel made their
submissions and also cited various judgments as under:
Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
i. BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs NHPC LIMITED
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025ii. Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited
iii. Kush Raj Bhatia Vs DLF Power and Services Limited
iv. Cravants Media Private Limited Vs Jharkhand State Co-Operative
Milk Producers Federation Ltdv. Meenakshi Nehra Bhat Vs Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited
vi. Homevista Décor and Furnishing Pvt. Ltd Vs Connect Residuary
Private Limitedvii. Hasmukh Prajapati Vs Jai Prakash Associates Ltd
viii. Kei-Rsos Petrolium and Energy Pvt Ltd Vs RAK Ceramics Pvt.Ltd
Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent:
i. BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs NHPC LIMITED ii. Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited Vs Datawind Innovations Private Limited iii. Brahmani River Pellets Limited Vs Kamachi Industries Limited
20. Though several grounds are raised by the appellant in the
memorandum of grounds, the primary argument advanced is in regard to
Clause 57 and 58 of the DAGPA, which reads as under.
57. Arbitration:
In the event of a disagreement or dispute between the “PARTIES” in
relation to these “PRESENTS” the “PARTIES” shall attempt in good faith to
resolve those differences, failing which, all disputes or differences
whatsoever which shall at any time hereafter (whether during the
continuance of these “PRESENTS or upon or after its discharge or
determination) arise between the “PARTIES” hereto shall be referred to
arbitration in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 2015, or any statutory modification or re-
enactment thereof for the time being in force. Each party shall be entitled
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025to appoint/nominate one Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators so
appointed/nominated shall appoint the third Presiding Arbitrator. The
awards of the Arbitrators shall be final and binding on the “PARTIES” to
the reference. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Hyderabad only.
58. Jurisdiction:
In respect of matters / disputes arising out of in connection with or in
relation to this Development Agreement cum GPA only the civil courts in
East Godavari District shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
courts.
During the pendency of any dispute, both “PARTIES” shall save as
otherwise provided herein continue to perform their respective obligations
under this Agreement and shall not, whether by acts or omissions impede
or otherwise interfere with the endeavors of the defaulting party to remedy
the breach or default to which such dispute relates.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the intention of the
parties to the agreement was for not conferring the seat of arbitration, but it
is only to indicate the place of arbitration. When place / venue is fixed
without any contra indication, the same can be treated as seat of arbitration.
However, in the express terms of Clause 58 of the agreement, the Civil
Courts at East Godavari District were conferred with exclusive jurisdiction,
thereby excluding the jurisdiction of all other courts. which meant to be read
that for the purpose of jurisdiction, there is an exclusion provision which
ousters jurisdiction of all other civil courts, except the courts at East
Godavari District which would clearly and categorically confers jurisdiction
upon the courts at East Godavari alone, and no other Court at any place will
not have any jurisdiction to entertain any application. As such, the
commercial court went wrong in holding that the seat of arbitration is fixed at
Hyderabad. While referring to clause 57, learned counsel for the appellant
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
contended that the place of arbitration is only fixed at Hyderabad does not
mean that the place fixed is the seat of arbitration to confer the territorial
jurisdiction of all the proceedings under Clause 57 upon Courts at
Hyderabad. As there is a contra indicia as contained in clause 58 of the
agreement, whereby the civil courts at East Godavari District alone are
conferred with the jurisdiction, duly and expressly excluding the jurisdiction
of all other courts, as such, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be called
the place of arbitration stated in Clause 57 as the seat of arbitration to
provided exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at Hyderabad.
22. It is also contended that if there is no contra indicia or no clause
indicating contra to the arbitration clause where place of arbitration is
prescribed; the same can be treated as seat of arbitration. However, in the
instant case clause 58 excludes and also ousters jurisdiction of other courts
except the courts at East Godavari would have to be treated as contra
indicia to clause 57, as such, the place mentioned in clause 57 is a mere
place of arbitration to conduct the arbitral proceedings at Hyderabad, the
same does not confer status of seat/venue as decided in the order
impugned. For the said proposition, learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in BGS SGS SOMA JV’s
case (Supra 1). The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder:
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
46. This Court in Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. [Indus Mobile
Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678 :
(2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 760] , after referring to Sections 2(1)(e) and 20 of the
Arbitration Act, 1996, and various judgments distinguishing between the
“seat” of an arbitral proceeding and “venue” of such proceeding, referred to
the Law Commission Report, 2014 and the recommendations made
therein as follows : (SCC pp. 692-93, paras 17-20)
“17. In amendments to be made to the Act, the Law
Commission recommended the following:
„Amendment of Section 20
12. In Section 20, delete the word “place” and add the words “seat
and venue” before the words “of arbitration”.
(i) In sub-section (1), after the words “agree on the” delete the
word “place” and add words “seat and venue”.
(ii) In sub-section (3), after the words “meet at any” delete the
word “place” and add word “venue”. [Note.–The departure from the
existing phrase “place” of arbitration is proposed to make the
wording of the Act consistent with the international usage of the
concept of a “seat” of arbitration, to denote the legal home of the
arbitration. The amendment further legislatively distinguishes
between the “[legal] seat” from a “[mere] venue” of arbitration.]
Amendment of Section 31
17. In Section 31
(i) In sub-section (4), after the words “its date and the” delete
the word “place” and add the word “seat”.‟
18. The amended Act, does not, however, contain the
aforesaid amendments, presumably because
the Balco [Balco v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.,(2012)
9 SCC 552 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 810] judgment in no uncertain
terms has referred to “place” as “juridical seat” for the purpose of
Section 2(2) of the Act. It further made it clear that Sections 20(1)
and 20(2) where the word “place” is used, refers to “juridical seat”,
whereas in Section 20(3), the word “place” is equivalent to “venue”.
This being the settled law, it was found unnecessary to expressly
incorporate what the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has
already done by way of construction of the Act.
19. A conspectus of all the aforesaid provisions shows that the
moment the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction
clause. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seat of
arbitration is Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear that
jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Mumbai courts. Under the law of
arbitration, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to suits
filed in courts, a reference to “seat” is a concept by which a neutral
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
venue can be chosen by the parties to an arbitration clause. The
neutral venue may not in the classical sense have jurisdiction —
that is, no part of the cause of action may have arisen at the neutral
venue and neither would any of the provisions of Sections 16 to 21
of the Code of Civil Procedure be attracted. In arbitration law
however, as has been held above, the moment “seat” is determined,
the fact that the seat is at Mumbai would vest Mumbai courts with
exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings
arising out of the agreement between the parties.
20. It is well settled that where more than one court has
jurisdiction, it is open for the parties to exclude all other courts. For
an exhaustive analysis of the case law, see Swastik Gases (P)
Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 157] This was
followed in a recent judgment in B.E. Simoese Von Staraburg
Niedenthal v. Chhattisgarh Investment Ltd. [B.E. Simoese Von
Staraburg Niedenthal v. Chhattisgarh Investment Ltd., (2015) 12
SCC 225 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 427] . Having regard to the above, it
is clear that Mumbai courts alone have jurisdiction to the exclusion
of all other courts in the country, as the juridical seat of arbitration is
at Mumbai. This being the case, the impugned judgment [Datawind
Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd., 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 3744 : (2016) 158 DRJ 391] is set aside. The injunction
confirmed by the impugned judgment will continue for a period of
four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, so
that the respondents may take necessary steps under Section 9 in
the Mumbai Court. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.”
This judgment has recently been followed in Brahmani River
Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd.
82. On a conspectus of the aforesaid judgments, it may be concluded that
whenever there is the designation of a place of arbitration in an arbitration
clause as being the “venue” of the arbitration proceedings, the expression
“arbitration proceedings” would make it clear that the “venue” is really the
“seat” of the arbitral proceedings, as the aforesaid expression does not
include just one or more individual or particular hearing, but the arbitration
proceedings as a whole, including the making of an award at that place.
This language has to be contrasted with language such as “tribunals are to
meet or have witnesses, experts or the parties” where only hearings are to
take place in the “venue”, which may lead to the conclusion, other things
being equal, that the venue so stated is not the “seat” of arbitral
proceedings, but only a convenient place of meeting. Further, the fact that
the arbitral proceedings “shall be held” at a particular venue would also
indicate that the parties intended to anchor arbitral proceedings to a
particular place, signifying thereby, that that place is the seat of the arbitral
proceedings. This, coupled with there being no other significant contrary
indicia that the stated venue is merely a “venue” and not the “seat” of the
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
arbitral proceedings, would then conclusively show that such a clause
designates a “seat” of the arbitral proceedings. In an international context,
if a supranational body of rules is to govern the arbitration, this would
further be an indicia that “the venue”, so stated, would be the seat of the
arbitral proceedings. In a national context, this would be replaced by the
Arbitration Act, 1996 as applying to the “stated venue”, which then
becomes the “seat” for the purposes of arbitration.
23. Learned counsel would submit that as held above, when there is the
designation of a place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the
“venue” of the arbitration, the expression would make it clear that the
“venue” is really the “seat” of arbitral proceedings, as the aforesaid
expression does not include just one or more individual or particular
hearings, but the arbitration proceedings as a whole, including the making of
an award at that place. This language has to be contrasted with language
such as “tribunals are to meet or have witnesses, experts or the parties”
where only hearings are to take place in the “venue”, which may lead to the
conclusion, other things being equal, that the venue so stated is not the
“seat” of arbitral proceedings, but only a convenient place of meeting.
Further, the fact that the arbitral proceedings “shall be held” at a particular
venue would also indicate that the parties intended to anchor arbitral
proceedings to a particular place, signifying thereby, that the place is the
seat of the arbitral proceedings. This, coupled with there being no other
significant contrary indicia that the stated venue is merely a “venue” and not
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025the “seat” of the arbitral proceedings, would then conclusively show that
such a clause designates a “seat” of the arbitral proceedings.
24. In the case on hand, clause 57 indicates that the place of arbitration
at Hyderabad, would be a place of arbitration for the purpose of conducting
hearings and the same cannot be equated with status of seat in view of the
clause 58 which indicate contra that the jurisdiction of civil courts at East
Godavari alone are conferred, duly excluding the jurisdiction of other courts,
which operates as ouster of jurisdiction of all other courts except the courts
at East Godavari District. This would mean and intend to exclude the
jurisdiction of all other courts and amounts to contra indicia to clause 57, as
such, the same must be treated as a mere place of arbitration in which the
proceedings shall take place, whereas jurisdiction of the courts is meant to
confer upon the courts at East Godavari alone. Therefore, the commercial
court at Visakhapatnam alone can entertain the application under section 9
of the Act and no other court would be entitled to.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on judgment of
Hon‟ble Delhi High Court reported in Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd. v.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited3, wherein the relevant portion is extracted
here under:
3
2021 SCC OnLine Del 4748
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
14. As opposed to the general stipulation in Clause 9.1.2.0, Article 4 is
worded in clear, unambiguous, and directory terms. In fact, it serves as
the „contrary indica‟, which further demonstrates that the „venue‟ in
Clause 9.1.2.0 is only a physical place of meeting under Section 20(3)
of the Act. Article 4 – leaves no room that all actions and proceedings
arising out of the Contract, including arbitration, shall have to
necessarily be tried by the civil court(s) at Guwahati exclusively, and
does not lead to jurisdiction being vested in the court(s) at Delhi.
26. In the aforesaid judgment, clause 9.1.2.0 of GCC provides that venue
of arbitration shall be New Delhi. The said clause also provides that the
arbitrator may with the consent of the owner and the contractor agree upon
any other venue. The relevant portion of the aforesaid clause reads under:
“9.1.2.0.The venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi, provided that the
Arbitrators may with the consent of the OWNER and the
CONTRACTOR agree upon any other venue.
27. Considering the same, it was held that the said clause and Article 4 of
the GCC worded in clear, unambiguous, and direct terms. In fact, it serves
as the „contrary indica‟, which further demonstrates that the „venue‟ in
Clause 9.1.2.0 is only a physical place of meeting under Section 20(3) of the
Act. Article 4 – leaves no room that all actions and proceedings arising out of
the Contract, including arbitration, shall have to necessarily be tried by the
civil court(s) at Guwahati exclusively, and does not lead to jurisdiction being
vested in the court(s) at Delhi. Thus, from the above, the Hon‟ble Delhi
Court held that as there is a contra indicia regarding the Civil Courts
jurisdiction, the place of arbitration is treated as venue of arbitration and the
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
same is treated as not the seat of arbitration. Similarly, in the case on hand
also, Clause 58 constitutes a contraindication which would renders the
place indicated in Clause 57 as the mere venue/ place of arbitration for
conducting the proceedings alone and nothing more and the same cannot
be treated as seat of arbitration.
28. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the
judgment of Delhi High Court reported in Kush Raj Bhatia v. DLF Power &
Services Ltd.,4 wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
18. There is no reference to either seat or venue but it only mentions
about the “place” where the arbitration may take place. Much
controversy over a period of time has arisen in regard to the concept of
seat and venue which needs to be considered. The Act does not define
the term „Seat‟ or „Venue‟. Section 20 merely defines the „place of
arbitration‟ which is often used interchangeably with the term „Seat‟ and
„Venue‟ which often leads to controversy. It has been ascertained in
various judgments but the controversy keeps arising in different factual
settings and become subject matter of decisions by the Courts. The
terms „Seat‟ is of utmost importance as it connotes the situs of
arbitration. The term „Venue‟ though often confused with the term „Seat‟,
is more of a place chosen as convenient location by the parties to carry
out the arbitration proceedings, but it should not be confused with
„Seat‟. The term „Seat‟ carries more weight than „Venue‟ or „place‟.
29. Similarly, in Cravants Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand State
Cooperative Milk Food Federation Pvt. Ltd. Arbitration petition 915/2021
decided on 06.12.2021 by the Coordinate Bench, the Dispute
Resolution Clause provided that the venue of arbitration shall be
Ranchi, but any disputes arising out of this agreement shall be subject
to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi. It was held that
the intention of the parties was clear that the seat would be in New
Delhi and the Court at New Delhi was held to have the jurisdiction.
4
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3309
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
30. In the facts in hand, the relevant Clause 48 and Clause 49 read as
under:
48. All or any dispute arising out of touching upon or in relation to the
terms of the Lease Deed including the interpretation and validity of the
terms thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the parties
shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion failing which the same
shall be settled through arbitration. The arbitration shall be governed by
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory
amendments/modifications thereto for the time being in force. The
arbitration proceedings shall he held at an appropriate location in New
Delhi by a Sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Lessee and
whose decision shall be final and binding upon Lessor.
The Lessor hereby confirms that it shall have no objection to this
appointment even if the person so appointed, as the Arbitrator, is an
employee or Advocate of the Lessee or is otherwise connected to the
Lessee and the Lessor confirms that notwithstanding such
relationship/connection, the Lessor shall have no doubts as to the
independence or impartiality of the said Arbitrator.” That the Civil Courts
at Gurgaon and High Court at Chandigarh alone shall have jurisdiction.
49. That the Civil Courts at Gurgaon and High Court at Chandigarh
alone shall have jurisdiction.”
31. It is quite evident that there is a contraindication in the registered
Agreement that while the venue of arbitration may be New Delhi, but
the seat of arbitration shall be Gurgaon and High Court at Chandigarh.
In the circumstances, it has to be held that this Court has no jurisdiction
and it is the Courts at Gurgaon/High Court of Chandigarh which have
the exclusive jurisdiction for entertaining the disputes arising out of the
registered Lease Agreement.
29. Learned counsel would also contend that there is no reference to
either seat or venue of arbitration, and the clause only mentions about the
place where the arbitration may take place. As such, the same is only a
mere place of arbitration, which is often used interchangeably with the term
„sitting or venue‟. The term „venue‟ though often confused with the term
„seat‟ is more of a place chosen as a convenient location by the parties to
carry out arbitration proceedings, but it should not be confused with the
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
seat. The term „seat‟ carries more weight than „venue or place‟ and the
clause 57 indicates that the proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad and
there is a contraindication in clause 58 conferring the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts at East Godavari excluding or ousting the jurisdiction of all other
courts would have to be treated as a contra indicia and the place of
arbitration shall be treated as a mere place for conducting proceedings, not
the seat of arbitration. In the above referred case, the Hon‟ble Delhi High
Court had taken the very similar view and held that the Courts at Gurgaon or
Chandigarh will have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispute
arising out of the said agreement.
30. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble
Delhi High Court reported in Cravants Media (P) Ltd. v. Jharkhand State
Co. Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.,5 wherein the relevant
portion is extracted hereunder:
11. The question whether the intention of the parties in specifying a
location for arbitral proceedings is merely to fix a convenient „venue‟ or
a seat/place of arbitration has to be ascertained from the language of
the arbitration agreement.
13. Clause 16.2 of the Agreement uses the word “venue”. This clearly
indicates that the parties had agreed that the venue of the arbitration
shall be Ranchi and not the place of arbitration. It is clear from a
conjoint reading of the two clauses (Clause 16.2 and 16.5 of the
Agreement) that the parties had agreed that the venue of arbitration
would be Ranchi but the court at Delhi would have the exclusive5
2021 SCC OnLine Del 5350
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025jurisdiction. Thus, Ranchi must be considered only as the venue of
arbitration and not the place or seat of arbitration.
31. Learned counsel, while relying on the above said judgment, submits
that the intention of the parties in specifying a location for arbitral
proceedings is merely to fix a convenient „venue‟ or a place of arbitration. It
has to be ascertained from the language of the arbitration agreement itself
as to whether that is a seat or not. A conjoint reading of the two clauses
referred to in the present agreement would clearly establish that place of
arbitration mentioned in Clause 57 is only a place for conducting the
proceedings and is a mere venue, which cannot be equated as a seat of
arbitration to confer upon the jurisdiction, as the same was expressly
excluded by clause 58 to confer upon the jurisdiction of Civil Courts at East
Godavari District alone and excluding the jurisdiction or ousting the
jurisdiction of all other courts.
32. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Delhi High Court reported in Meenakshi Nehra Bhat v. Wave Megacity
Centre (P) Ltd.,6
14. Upon a conspectus of the averments contained in the petition and in
the reply; and based upon the submissions made, in the opinion of this
court, the following inferences arise:
14.1. The evident discordance in the arbitration clause as regards
territorial jurisdiction for purposes of arbitration and for purposes of6
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3744
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025general civil proceedings, is resolved by de-constructing the clause
itself. It is noticed that nowhere in the arbitration clause are the words
„venue‟ or „seat‟ used at all. What the parties have said, and agreed to
in the arbitration clause, is that the arbitration proceedings shall be
„held‟ at the corporate office of the respondent at New Delhi. The
agreement to hold arbitral proceedings at a given office is an
indication only of the location where such arbitration sittings shall be
conducted;
14.2. Though the arbitration clause could, no doubt, have been worded
with more clarity, the absence of neat wordingdoes not mean that the
court can re-write the clause by inserting words that do not exist in it, or
by ignoring some other part of it. In such circumstances, what the court
must do, is to bear in mind the legal distinction between „venue‟ and
„seat‟ of arbitration, and the further distinction with “territorial jurisdiction”
generally in relation to civil proceedings other than arbitration, as settled
by various precedents; and then read the arbitration clause to give the
clause its plain, simple and straightforward meaning, while not effacing
the territorial jurisdiction clause contained in the same agreement;
14.3. Though, as noted above, multiple judicial precedents have been
cited by both sides, this court is persuaded to follow the interpretation
given to a very similarly worded arbitration clause in a recent decision of
a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Kush Raj Bhati (supra), where the
court was dealing with an arbitration clause which read as follows:
“48. All or any dispute arising out of touching upon or in relation to the
terms of the Lease Deed including the interpretation and validity of the
terms thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the parties
shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion failing which the same
shall be settled through arbitration. The arbitration shall be governed by
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory
amendments/modifications thereto for the time being in force. The
arbitration proceedings shall he held at an appropriate location in New
Delhi by a Sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Lessee and
whose decision shall be final and binding upon Lessor. The Lessor
hereby confirms that it shall have no objection to this appointment even
if the person so appointed, as the Arbitrator, is an employee or Advocate
of the Lessee or is otherwise connected to the Lessee and the Lessor
confirms that notwithstanding such relationship/connection, the Lessor
shall have no doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the said
Arbitrator.”
“49. That the Civil Courts at Gurgaon and High Court at Chandigarh
alone shall have jurisdiction.”
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
In the above case, after referring to the extant legal position, and in
view of the contraindication in the agreement whereby the „venue‟ of
arbitration, viz. the place where the arbitration proceedings were agreed
to be held, was New Delhi, but the „seat‟ of arbitration would lie within
the territorial jurisdiction of the civil courts at Gurgaon and the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, the Co-ordinate Bench
declined to entertain the arbitration petition for lack of territorial
jurisdiction.
14.4. The arbitration clause in the present case is similarly worded, and
therefore, in the opinion of this court, New Delhi is referred to in that
clause only as the location for conducting arbitral proceedings.
However, from the jurisdictional perspective, the parties have expressly
agreed to territorial jurisdiction vesting in the courts at Gautam Buddh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and the Allahabad High Court, as may be
applicable, depending on the proceedings in question.
33. Learned counsel, while relying on the above said judgment, submitted
that in view of the contraindication contained in the agreement, whereby the
venue of arbitration, namely, the place where the arbitration proceedings
were agreed to be held, was New Delhi, but the seat of arbitration would lie
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Gurgaon. As the
arbitration clause is similarly worded that of the clause in the above referred
judgment and the jurisdiction conferred upon the Civil Courts at East
Godavari clearly constitutes a contraindication to clause 57 of the
agreement. Thus, the place of arbitration mentioned in the case on hand
cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration.
34. Learned counsel also placed a reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble
Calcutta High Court reported in Homevista Decor & Furnishing (P) Ltd. v.
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
Connect Residuary (P) Ltd.,7wherein the relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:
14. In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
Delhi High Court had before itself two different clauses, one stating that
place of arbitration shall be New Delhi and another opting courts at
Bengaluru to have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. The court placed
reliance upon the Apex Court’s judgment in Mankastu Impex (supra) to
hold that the seat was Delhi and it had jurisdiction over the arbitral
proceedings. With great humility, I would disagree with the ratio laid down
in this judgment. Firstly, it did not examine whether the clause opting
courts at Bengaluru to have exclusive jurisdiction can be seen as a
„contrary indicia‟. Secondly, the reliance on Apex Court’s judgment
in Mankastu Impex (supra) was misplaced as in Mankastu Impex (supra),
the Apex Court was dealing with an international commercial arbitration
wherein the courts at New Delhi were stated to have jurisdiction, but
disputes were to be resolved by arbitration administered in Hong Kong.
There was an additional clause which provided that a party may seek
injunctive relief from a court having jurisdiction. The Apex Court held that
since it was a foreign seated arbitration, the inclusion of clause giving
courts at New Delhi jurisdiction was only for the purpose of enabling
injunctive relief and reading the contract in a wholesome manner would
indicate that the seat was actually Hong Kong. Such is not the case in a
domestic seated arbitration. Therefore, a clause designating another court
to have exclusive jurisdiction has to be considered while appreciating if
there is a „contrary indicia‟.
15. In Balapreetham Guest House (supra), the Madras High Court was
dealing with a situation wherein the place of arbitration was stated to be
New Delhi and courts at Chennai were selected to have exclusive
jurisdiction. Relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below:–
„30. Considering the apparent conflict in respect of these 2 clauses
the two have to be harmoniously constructed to give meaning to both.
The rule of harmonious construction is to harmonise and not to
destroy and while interpreting the clauses Courts have to presume
that the parties had inserted every clause thereof for a purpose and
therefore attempt to give effect to both. A reading of the 2 clauses
would indicate that the parties had agreed that in case of a cause of
action arising from out of the agreement then the Courts at Chennai
alone will have jurisdiction, if parties abandon their right to arbitrate
the dispute and file a civil suit.
7
2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1405
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
31. However, the latter clause viz; 10.2 and 10.3 relates to disputes
between the parties arising out of or in connection with the
agreement and parties have agreed to resolve their disputes through
Arbitration and have agreed that the seat of such Arbitral proceedings
will be New Delhi. Therefore, the two clauses can be harmoniously
constructed without one doing violence to the other.
32. Even if we were to assume that the two clauses are in conflict
with each other the same can be resolved by considering the law laid
down by the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the
judgments referred above placed importance on the juridical seat to
confer jurisdiction on Courts in the case of Arbitration Proceedings. In
the Judgment in BGS Soma the learned Judges had held that the
very fact that parties have chosen a place to be the seat necessarily
implies that both parties have agreed that the Courts at the seat
would have jurisdiction over the entire arbitral process. Therefore, on
account of a conspectus of the above judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, wherein emphasis and importance has been given to
the juridical seat, in the instant case the Court having supervisory
jurisdiction is the Courts where parties have agreed would be the
place of arbitration.‟
21. Contractual interpretation necessitates taking into consideration all
clauses and relevant factors to propound the proper intention between the
parties. The rule of harmonious construction must be applied so that a
panoramic meaning can be given to any agreement. The law with respect
to arbitration clauses, as laid down in BGS SGS SOMA (supra)
and Mankastu Impex (supra), is not alien to such interpretive principles. In
light of the Apex Court’s decisions in these two judgments, other clauses
have to be scrutinized, when a location has been mentioned as „venue‟ or
„place‟, to fathom if such a location can be dignified with the status of „seat‟.
In my opinion, a clause opting a place as „venue‟ or „place‟ read with
another clause which mentions courts of another location to have
jurisdiction over disputes that may arise, inhibits the promotion of such
„venue‟ to „seat‟. The intention that emerges from an aggregate
understanding of such clauses is that the „venue‟ or „place‟ was to be a
convenient location for holding of arbitration seatings. The courts of the
place selected as having exclusive jurisdiction over disputes should be
considered as „seat‟ and having jurisdiction to entertain applications under
the Act.
22. In the facts of this case, Exhibit 2 of the MRA mentions that the
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, and the venue of such arbitration shall be in
Kolkata. However, it cannot be analysed in seclusion of the other clauses.
Due regard must be paid to other clauses, if any, which may act as a
„contrary indicia‟ to suggest that the parties intended the venue to not be
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
seat of the arbitral proceedings. It is clear that Clause 25 contained in the
MRA which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Mumbai in
respect of any and all disputes arising out of the agreement, is a „contrary
indicia‟ and shall proscribe the upgradation of „Kolkata‟ from being a mere
„venue‟ to that of „seat‟. The courts at Mumbai, in my opinion, possess the
jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition and other applications under the
Act. Correspondingly, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the
instant petition.
35. Basing on the above it was submitted that, while considering the
similar clauses in the agreement and referring to the judgment of Hon‟ble
Apex Court in BGS SGS SOMS JV‘s case (Supra 1), it was held that
„venue‟ or „place‟, to fathom if such a location can be dignified with the
status of „seat‟ or opting a place as „venue‟ or „place‟ read with another
clause which mentions courts of another location to have jurisdiction over
disputes that may arise, inhibits the promotion of such „venue‟ to „seat‟. The
intention that emerges from an aggregate understanding of such clauses is
that the „venue‟ or „place‟ was to be a convenient location for holding of
arbitration sittings. The courts of the place selected as having exclusive
jurisdiction over disputes, should be considered as „seat‟ and having
jurisdiction to entertain applications under the Act. The contra indicia is to
suggest that the parties intended the venue to not be seat of the arbitral
proceedings. In the case on hand, clause 57 indicates only the place/venue
of arbitration proceedings, but not conferring the jurisdiction upon the courts
at Hyderabad and clause 58 specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction and
intentionally avoiding/ ousting jurisdiction of the other Civil Courts would
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
have to be conjointly read and understood that the jurisdiction is conferred
upon the courts at East Godavari alone. Hence, the Special Court went
wrong in rejecting the application.
36. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court reported in Hasmukh
Prajapati Vs Jai Prakash Associates8, for the principle as stated in the
above referred judgments stating that once a contra indicia is evident
indicating that the parties are intended to treat the place of arbitration as
mere venue, the same cannot be treated as the seat so as to confer
jurisdiction.
37. Similarly, learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance for
the very same principle on the judgment of this Hon‟ble Court in Kei-Rsos
Petrolium & Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs RAK Ceramics Pvt.Ltd., (Supra 2)
wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
30. The argument of Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel,
that the words “arbitration proceedings” in Clause 9.3 coupled with the
expression “the place of arbitration shall be Hyderabad” will exclusively
and unambiguously mean that the seat of arbitration is Hyderabad,
cannot be accepted, because the place of arbitration is not restricted to
Hyderabad alone and as may be resolved by the parties, it could be
also in any other places in another State, namely, in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. It is difficult to subscribe to the argument that the expression
“place of arbitration” so far as it relates to Hyderabad should be
construed as seat of arbitration and “any place mutually agreed by the
parties in Andhra Pradesh” should be construed as a venue. A uniform
8
2022 SCC OnLine ALL 96
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025interpretation has to be given with regard to an expression used in the
same sentence. That apart, the words “arbitration proceedings” in
Clause 9.3 are relatable to only in which language the proceedings will
be conducted and nothing beyond that. It is difficult to accept that,
Clause 9.1, having regard to the expression used in Clause 9.3, will not
bring within its fold arbitration proceedings and, therefore, it cannot be
understood to mean that the seat of arbitration is in Andhra Pradesh.
31. Having regard to the expression used in Clause 9.1, which ousted
the jurisdiction of all courts other than the courts of the State of Andhra
Pradesh, Clause 9.3 must be construed to mean that the parties
intended Hyderabad or any other place in the State of Andhra Pradesh,
as may be found convenient, as a venue for holding arbitration hearings
and meetings. Clause 9.3 does not contain an expression, such as,
“arbitration proceedings shall be held” and all that it says is that the
place of arbitration shall be at Hyderabad or any other place mutually
agreed by the parties in Andhra Pradesh and as such, the expression
“place of arbitration” cannot be taken as a basis to determine that the
parties had intended Hyderabad to be the seat of arbitration. The
intention of the parties has to be gathered from relevant clauses in the
agreement. Clause 9.3, in the understanding of the Court, does not
suggest that the parties intended to anchor arbitral proceedings at
Hyderabad, signifying thereby that Hyderabad is the seat of arbitral
proceedings.
32. The argument advanced that Clause 9.1 relates to the subject
matter of the suit between the parties and not to arbitration proceedings
has no merit and no such restriction, limiting application of Clause 9.1 to
only suits and not arbitration proceedings can be inferred. Clause 9.1
makes it clear that the State of Andhra Pradesh alone shall have sole
and exclusive jurisdiction with respect to “any proceedings” arising out
of or in relation to the subject agreement. Clause 9.2 also makes it clear
that any claim, dispute or controversy arising out of or in relation to the
agreement, including any dispute with respect to the existence or the
validity of the agreement shall be referred to a sole arbitrator. An
application for appointment of arbitrator is a “proceeding” arising out of
or in relation to the agreement in question and, therefore, in my opinion,
the same would fall under the purview of Clause 9.1 of the agreement.
Thus, the plea set up by the respondent company that this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain this application is not tenable.
38. Relying upon the above, learned counsel for the appellant argued that
in the case on hand mere mentioning that the place of arbitration shall be at
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
Hyderabad cannot be construed to mean that the seat of arbitration shall be
at Hyderabad alone. In view of the clause 58, indicating contra that the
jurisdiction of all other civil courts except the courts at East Godavari District
were excluded would mean and intend that Hyderabad was intended only
as a convenient place for conducting arbitral proceedings, whereas the
jurisdiction of the courts at Hyderabad are not conferred with any jurisdiction
to entertain any proceedings, as such, the same has to be treated as a
place of arbitration and the status of seat cannot be conferred upon the
same.
39. With these above referred cases as well as the arguments advanced,
the appellant sternly contended that as mentioned in clause 57 of the
agreement of DAGPA, place of arbitration cannot be elevated to the status
of seat where proceedings shall be taken place at that place for the
convenience of the parties and clause 58 which needs to be conjointly read
with clause 57 would clearly indicate that the jurisdiction of the courts other
than civil courts at East Godavari were intentionally excluded or the
jurisdiction of the said courts is ousted, as such, at any stretch of
imagination, the place at Hyderabad cannot be treated as the seat of
arbitration. As such, the learned trial court miserably failed to consider the
same and erred in dismissing the application filed under section 9 of the Act.
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
40. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri P Gangaiah Naidu assisted by Sri K.
Dhanunjaya Naidu, learned counsel for respondent would submit that the
seat of arbitration mentioned in clause 57 must be read in exclusion of
Clause 58 of the agreement. Referring to Section 42 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other
law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration
agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that
Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all
subsequent applications arising out of the agreement and the arbitral
proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. He would
further submit that the seat of arbitration mentioned in agreement would
decide and determine the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain any
further proceedings under the provisions of the Act and clause 58 of the
DAGPA is not a clause for the arbitration, it is an independent clause.
Clause 57 and 58 cannot be read together and Clause 58 would not over
rule clause 57 of the Agreement. In fact, with regard to the proceedings
under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Clause 57 overrule clause 58 of the
agreement. Clause 57 has to be read independently as Clause 58 is not an
arbitration clause for resolution of disputes under the provisions of the Act.
Clause 57 alone has to be treated as an arbitration clause under the
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
provisions of the said Act. Once clause 57 is read independently, there is no
contra indicia to render place of arbitration at Hyderabad as mere
place/venue. It is the seat of arbitration and there is no contra indicia in the
arbitration agreement (Clause 57) as such, the intention of the parties has to
be drawn from the very arbitration agreement itself, which indicate the place
of arbitration as Hyderabad only which would mean and intend that it will be
the seat of arbitration alone. For the said proposition, learned Senior
Counsel placed reliance, particularly, on Para Nos. 97 and 98 of the
judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in BGS SGS SOMA JV‘s case
(Supra 1) and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
97. Given the fact that if there were a dispute between NHPC Ltd. and a
foreign contractor, Clause 67.3(vi) would have to be read as a clause
designating the “seat” of arbitration, the same must follow even when sub-
clause (vi) is to be read with sub-clause (i) of Clause 67.3, where the
dispute between NHPC Ltd. would be with an Indian contractor. The
arbitration clause in the present case states that “Arbitration
proceedings shall be held at New Delhi/Faridabad, India…”, thereby
signifying that all the hearings, including the making of the award, are to
take place at one of the stated places. Negatively speaking, the clause
does not state that the venue is so that some, or all, of the hearings take
place at the venue; neither does it use language such as “the Tribunal may
meet”, or “may hear witnesses, experts or parties”. The expression “shall
be held” also indicates that the so-called “venue” is really the “seat” of the
arbitral proceedings. The dispute is to be settled in accordance with the
Arbitration Act, 1996 which, therefore, applies a national body of rules to
the arbitration that is to be held either at New Delhi or Faridabad, given the
fact that the present arbitration would be Indian and not international. It is
clear, therefore, that even in such a scenario, New Delhi/Faridabad, India
has been designated as the “seat” of the arbitration proceedings.
98. However, the fact that in all the three appeals before us the
proceedings were finally held at New Delhi, and the awards were signed in
New Delhi, and not at Faridabad, would lead to the conclusion that both
parties have chosen New Delhi as the “seat” of arbitration under Section
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. This being the case, both parties have,
therefore, chosen that the courts at New Delhi alone would have exclusive
jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the fact that a part of
the cause of action may have arisen at Faridabad would not be relevant
once the “seat” has been chosen, which would then amount to an
exclusive jurisdiction clause so far as courts of the “seat” are concerned.
41. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the arbitration
clause states that the arbitration proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad
thereby, signifying that all the hearings including making of award are to be
taken place at one of the stated places, as such, that does not state that
some proceedings shall take place at some place or some proceedings
shall take place at some other place. The clause expressly state that „shall
be held at Hyderabad‟ includes hearing and examining witnesses or parties
would clearly indicate that the so-called venue is really the seat of arbitral
proceedings itself. Thus, once the same is treated as seat of arbitration, all
the proceedings and subsequent proceedings before the competent civil
courts at Hyderabad shall have to be taken place. In the instant case, the
appellant approached the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam under
Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which cannot be said that the
proceedings are not under Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As such, once
they are governed by clause 57 (arbitration agreement) the place of
arbitration is specified and designated at Hyderabad, the same has to be
treated as the seat of arbitration and the courts at Hyderabad would only
have the jurisdiction and all the other jurisdictions are excluded, as such, the
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
commercial court is right in holding that the application under section 9 is
not maintainable and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such
application.
42. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited
Vs Datawind Innovations Private Limited9, wherein the relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:
20. A conspectus of all the aforesaid provisions shows that the moment
the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On
the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seat of arbitration is
Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear that jurisdiction
exclusively vests in the Mumbai courts. Under the Law of Arbitration,
unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to suits filed in courts,
a reference to “seat” is a concept by which a neutral venue can be
chosen by the parties to an arbitration clause. The neutral venue may
not in the classical sense have jurisdiction-that is, no part of the cause
of action may have arisen at the neutral venue and neither would any of
the provisions of Section 16 to 21 of the CPC be attracted. In arbitration
law however, as has been held above, the moment “seat” is
determined, the fact that the seat is at Mumbai would vest Mumbai
courts with exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral
proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties.
21. It is well settled that where more than one court has jurisdiction, it is
open for parties to exclude all other courts. For an exhaustive analysis
of the case law, see Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, (2013) 9 SCC 32. This was followed in a recent
judgment in B.E. Simoese Von Staraburg Niedenthal and Another v.
Chhattisgarh Investment Limited, (2015) 12 SCC 225. Having regard to
the above, it is clear that Mumbai courts alone have jurisdiction to the
exclusion of all other courts in the country, as the juridical seat of
arbitration is at Mumbai. This being the case, the impugned judgment is
set aside. The injunction confirmed by the impugned judgment will
continue for a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of
9
2017 (4) SCR 744
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
this judgment, so that the respondents may take necessary steps under
Section 9 in the Mumbai Court. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
43. In the above referred case, the challenge was against the order
passed by the Delhi High Court holding that the place of arbitration is at
Mumbai and Mumbai Courts have exclusive jurisdiction stating that the
courts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising
under the agreement and it would oust the jurisdiction of all the other courts
including High Court of Delhi. Wherein the clauses were also extracted in
Para No.3 of the said judgment under the heading „Dispute Resolution
Mechanism‟ and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
All disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out of or in
connection with this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of Court of Mumbai only
44. In Para No. 20 of the Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited’s
case (Supra 10), it was held that in arbitration law, however, as has been
held above, the moment “seat” is determined, the fact that the seat is at
Mumbai, would vest Mumbai Courts with exclusive jurisdiction for the
purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings arising out of agreement
between the parties. Thus, it was contended that the place of arbitration,
unless there is specifically provided for as mere place of arbitration and
jurisdiction is conferred upon the other courts in the arbitration agreement
itself, the place mentioned in the arbitration agreement will have to be
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
treated as a seat of arbitration. It is contended that, in the case on hand, the
arbitration clause under 57 does not indicate any contraindication regarding
territorial jurisdiction and mentioned that the place of arbitration shall be at
Hyderabad which would be a clear indication that the same should be within
the courts at Hyderabad alone, as such, the learned Special Court rightly
dismissed the application.
45. Learned Senior Counsel also cited a Judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court
reported in Brahmani River Pellets Limited Vs Kamachi Industries
Limited10 for the very same principle, and contended that once the parties
have agreed that the venue of arbitration shall be at a particular place as
per the agreement, the intention of the parties is to exclude all other courts
and non use of words like „exclusive jurisdiction‟, „only‟, „exclusive‟, „alone‟ is
not decisive and does not make any material difference. The clause under
57 had categorically specify that the arbitration „shall be held at Hyderabad
only‟ is nothing but deciding the seat of arbitration at Hyderabad alone. As
such, the clause 57 alone has to be treated as an arbitration agreement and
the jurisdiction under clause 58 cannot be said to be with reference to the
proceedings under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, they are independent.
As such, the commercial court is right in holding that it lacks jurisdiction and
accordingly, rejected application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
10
(2020) 5 SCC 462
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
Conciliation Act. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by
the commercial court in dismissing the application for want of territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 9 of the Act and prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
46. Considering the above said rival contentions of either party, the point
that fell for consideration is
“Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the
Act, by invoking arbitration clause 57 of the agreement,
would fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial
Court at Visakhapatnam or not, in the light of Clause 58 of
the agreement?”
POINT : –
47. As stated above, Clauses 57 and 58 of the DAGPA read in
contravention with each other, if Clause 57 is read in isolation, it provides
that the „place of arbitration shall be at Hyderabad only‟ would indicate that
the proceedings of the arbitration shall be held at Hyderabad in the event of
any disagreement or dispute between the parties in relation to the
agreement. It further provides that all disputes or differences whatsoever
which shall at any time hereafter arise between the parties hereto shall be
referred to arbitration in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 or any statutory modification or
re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. The awards of the
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
arbitrators shall be final and binding on the parties to the reference. The
arbitration proceeding shall be held in Hyderabad only. A plain reading
of the said clause would indicate that all the differences or disputes and
disagreements between the parties shall be the arbitrable disputes and
each party shall be entitled to appoint one arbitrator and the appointed
arbitrators shall appoint the third presiding arbitrator for resolving the said
disputes and it specifically refers to the place of proceedings as Hyderabad,
specifically stating that ” the arbitration proceedings shall be held in
Hyderabad only” would indicate that the proceedings shall be held at
Hyderabad alone. However, clause 58, followed by Clause 57 titled as
„jurisdiction‟ refers to in respect of the matters/disputes arising out of, in
connection with or in relation to this DAGPA, only the Civil Courts in East
Godavari District shall have the jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
Courts. This would indicate contra to clause 57 of the agreement, stating
that the matters/ disputes arising out of, in connection with or in relation to
this DAGPA shall be dealt by the civil courts in East Godavari with an
exclusive jurisdiction by excluding all other courts. By virtue of clause 58,
the jurisdiction of the courts other than civil courts in East Godavari District
were intentionally excluded or ousted from entertaining any such
proceedings. Basing on this, learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that this exclusion will also works against clause 57 (arbitration agreement),
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
whereby the part of the clause ‘that arbitration proceedings shall be held in
Hyderabad only‟ renders it as a place of arbitration only for the convenience
of parties and that does not confer jurisdiction of the Civil courts at
Hyderabad to entertain any proceedings under the provisions of the Act.
Mere mentioning of a place of arbitration would not amount to fixing of the
seat of arbitration, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the courts of that
place and Clauses 57 and 58 of the DAGPA must be conjointly read to
arrive and draw the intention of the parties to the agreement while entering
into such an agreement. Thus, the intention is very clear that the arbitration
proceedings will be taken place at Hyderabad where the same has to be
treated as a place/venue of arbitration and the same cannot be equated or
elevated to the status of seat of arbitration.
48. However, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
clauses are independent to each other and clause 57 will not be superseded
by clause 58 and they have to be read independently excluding the
proceedings of arbitration from the regular civil proceedings under the
development agreement, the arbitration proceedings shall be held at
Hyderabad was intentionally mentioned to confer upon the jurisdiction of the
courts at Hyderabad with regard to the proceedings under the Act. Thus, the
commercial court rightly interpreted clause 57 and 58 and placed reliance
on the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court, particularly, BGS SGS SOMA JV’s
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
case (Supra 1) and held that the arbitration agreement is independent of
clause 58 of agreement and the place of arbitration has to be treated as
seat of arbitration as there is no contra indicia, as such, the court lacks
jurisdiction and accordingly, rightly rejected the application filed under
section 9 of the Act.
49. On careful consideration of the above referred clauses as well as the
judicial pronouncements relied upon by the parties, and upon analysis of
facts and law, it is evident that clause 57 of the DAGPA which invokes the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, mandates that the
proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, would invariably fall under clause
57 amounts to the proceedings under the provisions of the said Act. As
such, the courts are bound to rely upon the arbitration agreement between
the parties while deciding either the jurisdiction or the scope of arbitral
proceedings. In the instant case, clause 57 of the DAGPA would clearly
indicate that all the disagreements/disputes are arbitrable disputes falling
under clause 57 of the agreement would be dealt with in accordance with
the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the said clause
specifically provides that the place of arbitration as Hyderabad alone, which
would mean and intend to say that the proceedings under the arbitration
shall be taken place at Hyderabad alone.
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
50. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the judgment of BGS SGS SOMA JV’s
case, laid down the principle that unless there is a contra indicia in the
agreement, the place/venue of proceedings shall be treated as the „seat‟ of
arbitration, which would conclusively and expressly provided the territorial
jurisdiction on the courts of the said territory. As such, the courts at the
place/venue of arbitration confers a vital role in deciding the seat of
arbitration, thereby the jurisdiction itself. Provided that there is no contra
indication.
51. In the instant case, as contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is a mention of contra indicia in the agreement,
indicating that the place of arbitration, which can be treated as only a mere
place to take up the proceedings. As the clause mentions only the phrase
that “place of arbitration shall be at Hyderabad only” would clearly indicate
that all the hearings and other proceedings of arbitral tribunal like examining
witnesses, taking place of hearings and making of award would also fall
within the said place of arbitration which would definitely be treated as a
seat of arbitration, if Clause 58 of the agreement is not indicating contra.
Regarding clause 58 of the agreement, there is a mention about all the
disputes which also cover the proceedings under the clause 57. The said
clause also provides for continuation of obligations under the agreement
during the pendency of disputes. The intention of the parties would be clear
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
from a conjoined reading of clause 57 and 58 that the parties are intended
to take place the proceedings of arbitration under clause 57 at the
Hyderabad, whereas the jurisdiction of Courts are excluded by Clause 58.
Thus, in all probabilities the place mentioned in clause 57 would have to be
treated as a place of arbitration and the jurisdiction of courts should be
decided by Clause 58.
52. The case law relied upon by the Special Court in BGS SS SOMA
JV‘s case, at Para 97 would clinches the issue that the place of arbitration,
if the same is not contra Indicia, it is to be the seat of arbitration and all the
proceedings would take place only at that particular place of arbitration,
including the territorial jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of the said
arbitration proceedings would take place. But in the instant case, Clause 58
of the agreement in its express terms excludes the jurisdiction of all other
courts except the courts at East Godavari District. If both the clauses are not
read together, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Clause 58 would render in otiose and no meaningful interpretation could be
given to the said clause.
53. In fact, it was the intention of the parties that all the clauses in the
agreement are to be read in conjoint and cannot be in isolation. Clause 57
would only provide for arbitration and Clause 58 provide for jurisdiction of
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
courts. Therefore, Clauses 57 and 58 have to be read together and they are
dependent clauses and Clause 58 covers the proceedings under Clause 57
also which would mean to include the arbitration proceedings also. That
apart, clause 57 speaks that the proceedings of arbitration shall be held at
Hyderabad only would mean and intend that the said proceedings shall take
place at Hyderabad for the convenience of the parties. Therefore
Hyderabad can be treated as place of arbitration only. The same cannot be
treated as seat of arbitration. Thus, it can be safely held that the jurisdiction
of all the civil courts other than the Courts at East Godavari District are
excluded and as such the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act are to be invoked or instituted in terms of Clause 57
read with Clause 58 of the agreement. As the subject territory of East
Godavari District has been attached to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge
For Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes Act, Visakhapatnam, the
Special Court at Visakhapatnam is vested with the territorial jurisdiction over
the subject proceedings.
54. Therefore, the order passed by the learned commercial court is not in
accordance with the arbitration clause provided under the agreement and
also the settled legal principles. Thus, the order dated 01.12.2025 passed in
C.A.O.P.No.11 of 2025 is liable to be set aside.
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
55. Accordingly, we allow the appeal by setting aside the order dated
01.12.2025 passed in C.A.O.P.No.11 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge
For Trial and Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
_________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
Date: 07.05.2026
Dvs
RNT,J & BM,J
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
COMCA.No.27 of 2025
Date: 07.05.2026
Dvs
