MSME Arbitrations and the Seat of Arbitration: A Contest between Party Autonomy and Legislative Prescription
by Milind Sharma*, Abhisaar Bairagi**, and Ausaf Ayyub***
Seat of arbitration
Justice Tashi Rabstan, 37th Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, retires
SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend Justice Rabstan as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh and he took oath of office on 27-9-2024.
Future of Arbitration in India: Decoding the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024
by Abhisaar Bairagi*, Milind Sharma** and Ausaf Ayyub***
Arbitration Law Roundup: A quick recap of the top arbitration cases from November 2024
Top arbitration cases on unilateral appointment, seat of arbitration, limitation period, scope of judicial scrutiny and more.
Express designation of place in an arbitration agreement is an appropriate criterion to determine Seat of Arbitration: SC
The Court clarified that the ‘Closest Connection Test’ for determining the seat of arbitration is no longer a viable criterion for determination. The seat of arbitration cannot be determined by formulaic and unpredictable application of choice of law rules based on abstract connecting factors to the underlying contract.
Know Thy Judge | Justice Tashi Rabstan, 37th Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Justice Tashi Rabstan was earlier recommended to be appointed as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court; however, the SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend him as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh.
‘Seat of arbitration is the place where arbitral proceedings are anchored’; Delhi High Court rejects petition filed u/s 34 of Arbitration Act
The Delhi High Court says that the seat of the arbitration is to be determined based on arbitral proceedings and not with cause of action for underlying disputes.
Resolving Ambiguities: Exclusive Jurisdiction vis-à-vis Seat, Venue and Place of Arbitration
by Jeevan Ballav Panda1 and Satish Padhi2
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
Bombay High Court dismisses appeal challenging jurisdiction in view of Section 42 of Arbitration Act
As per Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere or in any other law where with respect to an Arbitration Agreement, any application has been made to a Court which had jurisdiction, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings which was first approached.
Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”
Calcutta High Court resolves ‘Seat’ versus ‘Venue’ enigma when agreement confers ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ upon a court other than venue
Calcutta High Court dismissed the present petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
2023 SCC Vol. 1 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 20 and 42 r/w S. 2(1)(e) — Jurisdictional seat of arbitration once fixed under S.
[Arbitration Agreement] Delhi High Court reiterates the law of interpretation with respect to two inconsistent clauses of a same instrument/document/deed
Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one
Delhi High Court | When a prayer to appoint an Arbitrator has been heard and rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by filing a review petition
Mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the “Seat of Arbitration”
Change of venue does not result in change of the seat of arbitration; holding otherwise would create a recipe for litigation: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that subsequent hearings or proceedings at a different location
Juxtaposing Seat of Arbitration vis-à-vis Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses: Judicial Trend Thus Far
by Jeevan Ballav Panda† and Satish Padhi††
Where one party habitually resides in a foreign country, arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration even when the business is being carried through an office in India: SC
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration
Ker HC | Designation of seat of arbitration in an agreement is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of V. Chitambaresh and R. Narayana Pisharadi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of
Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e)
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and
Whether Two Indian Parties can have a Seat of Arbitration outside India?
By B.A. Sujay Prasanna*