{"id":203997,"date":"2018-10-20T15:30:15","date_gmt":"2018-10-20T10:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=203997"},"modified":"2018-10-23T18:25:33","modified_gmt":"2018-10-23T12:55:33","slug":"change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Change of ‘venue’ different from change of ‘seat’ of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for ‘seat’ being at London: Del HC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., declined to exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 holding the\u00a0seat\u00a0<\/em>Arbitration to be in London.<\/p>\n

The petition was filed under Section 34 in a matter arising out of a Time Charter Party Agreement entered into between the parties. the respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court contending that Part I of the Act was not applicable as the\u00a0seat\u00a0<\/em>of arbitration in the present petition was at London. It was an undisputed fact that according to the Arbitration Clause contained in the Agreement, the\u00a0seat\u00a0<\/em>of arbitration was to be at London though the hearings were being conducted in New Delhi. It was also undisputed that the petitioner had itself challenged the award impugned before the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Commercial Court (QBD) by way of a petition under Section 68 of the (English) Arbitration Act, 1996. In December 2010, the respondent, vide a letter, had sought change of seat\u00a0<\/em>of arbitration. Subsequently, vide its letter dated 23 March 2011, the petitioner informed the respondent that the\u00a0venue\u00a0<\/em>of the arbitration could be New Delhi and it still be governed by the (English) Arbitration Act, 1996 and by the procedure as prescribed by the London Maritime Arbitrators Association Rules (LMAA Rules). This was confirmed too by the respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the passage of the award impugned, the petitioner filed the instant petition which was challenged by the respondent as mentioned hereinabove.<\/p>\n

The High Court perused the record and was of the view that a reading of the correspondence exchanged between the parties would clearly show that the parties did not arrive at a consensus for change of\u00a0seat\u00a0<\/em>of arbitration from London to New Delhi. It was observed that the “venue cannot be construed as a seat of arbitration”.\u00a0<\/em>Reference was made to Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC,<\/em> 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1640<\/a> and it was held that not only the Arbitration clause contained in the Time Charter Party Agreement but also the conduct of the parties, gathered from the exchange of correspondence, their\u00a0conduct before the Arbitral Tribunal as also the conduct subsequent to the passing of the award impugned, would lead to a conclusion that the parties agreed on the seat<\/em> of arbitration to be at\u00a0 London. Therefore, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. [Dredging Corporation of India v. Mercator Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11930<\/b><\/a>, decided on 10-10-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., declined to exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a petition filed under Section <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[23324,32147,32146,30034],"class_list":["post-203997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-clause","tag-change-of-seat","tag-section-34-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-venue"],"yoast_head":"\nChange of 'venue' different from change of 'seat' of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for 'seat' being at London: Del HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Change of 'venue' different from change of 'seat' of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for 'seat' being at London: Del HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., declined to exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a petition filed under Section\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-10-20T10:00:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-23T12:55:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Change of 'venue' different from change of 'seat' of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for 'seat' being at London: Del HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-20T10:00:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-23T12:55:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Change of ‘venue’ different from change of ‘seat’ of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for ‘seat’ being at London: Del HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Change of 'venue' different from change of 'seat' of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for 'seat' being at London: Del HC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Change of 'venue' different from change of 'seat' of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for 'seat' being at London: Del HC","og_description":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., declined to exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a petition filed under Section","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-10-20T10:00:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-23T12:55:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/","name":"Change of 'venue' different from change of 'seat' of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for 'seat' being at London: Del HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-10-20T10:00:15+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-23T12:55:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Change of ‘venue’ different from change of ‘seat’ of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for ‘seat’ being at London: Del HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":210176,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/18\/ker-hc-designation-of-seat-of-arbitration-in-an-agreement-is-akin-to-an-exclusive-jurisdiction-clause\/","url_meta":{"origin":203997,"position":0},"title":"Ker HC | Designation of seat of arbitration in an agreement is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of V. Chitambaresh and R. Narayana Pisharadi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of District Judge refusing to entertain a petition challenging arbitral award. Appellant was a guarantor to the loan availed of by a company named Anugraha Wood Products Limited from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":217385,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/29\/determination-of-seat-law-by-the-indian-courts\/","url_meta":{"origin":203997,"position":1},"title":"Determination of Seat Law by the Indian Courts","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"by Alok Vajpeyi\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/AdobeStock_135924743.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/AdobeStock_135924743.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/AdobeStock_135924743.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/AdobeStock_135924743.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/AdobeStock_135924743.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352643,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/07\/dhc-on-arbitrators-discretion-to-fix-seat-of-arbitration\/","url_meta":{"origin":203997,"position":2},"title":"Arbitrator\u2019s discretion to fix venue\/seat of arbitration cannot override parties\u2019 exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"July 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"arbitrator's discretion seat of arbitration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":322374,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/17\/dhc-rejects-petition-for-arbitration-due-to-lack-of-jurisdiction-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":203997,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Seat of arbitration is the place where arbitral proceedings are anchored\u2019; Delhi High Court rejects petition filed u\/s 34 of Arbitration Act","author":"Editor","date":"May 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267525,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/27\/seat-of-arbitration-change-of-venue-supreme-court-india-judgment-territorial-jurisdiction-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":203997,"position":4},"title":"Change of venue does not result in change of the seat of arbitration; holding otherwise would create a recipe for litigation: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that subsequent hearings or proceedings at a different location other than the place fixed by the arbitrator as the \u2018seat of arbitration\u2019 should not be regarded and treated as a change or relocation of jurisdictional \u2018seat\u2019. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":341729,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/18\/merely-because-arbitrator-was-appointed-by-orissa-hc-is-no-ground-for-ranchi-court-to-not-have-jurisdiction-jhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":203997,"position":5},"title":"Merely because arbitrator was appointed by Orissa HC is no ground for Ranchi Court to not have jurisdiction: Jharkhand HC sets aside order dismissing S.34 arbitration application","author":"Arushi","date":"February 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The intention of both the parties where to go for arbitration, is at Ranchi and the proceeding after permission of the High Court was also conducted at Ranchi and in the agreement, the seat is also said to be at Ranchi. Thus, Ranchi court is having jurisdiction.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jharkhand High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}