{"id":279604,"date":"2022-12-14T16:00:46","date_gmt":"2022-12-14T10:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=279604"},"modified":"2022-12-16T12:32:45","modified_gmt":"2022-12-16T07:02:45","slug":"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","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/","title":{"rendered":"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"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/b> In a Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1<\/a> read with Section 114<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code<\/a> (CPC) seeking review of the order\/judgement wherein the petition under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act, 1996’) was dismissed stating that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain thepetition, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., upheld the impugned judgment and held that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate powers which enable a superior Court to correct all errors committed by the subordinate court and here cannot be any re-hearing of the original matter.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the power of review has not been provided for under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, and thus, the present application is on the face of it, is not maintainable.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the entire gamut of controversy is around the concept of “place” and the “seat”. The Arbitration Law envisages two jurisdictions, one is the place where the arbitration may take keeping the convenience of the parties in mind, and the other is the “seat” which determines the jurisdiction of the Courts where the parties may agitate any controversy arising out of the Arbitration.<\/p>\n

On the contention of the petitioner that the place of arbitration is in fact the seat of arbitration conferring the jurisdiction upon that court and the exclusive jurisdiction clause is not the determinative factor for the seat of arbitration, the Court noted that this cannot be a ground for review when a detailed order has been made on its facts to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996.<\/p>\n

Reliance was placed on Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd.<\/i> v. Airsual Ltd.<\/i>, (2020) 5 SCC 399<\/a>, the Court noted that while the Clause clearly provided that the place of Arbitration would be New Delhi, there was a contra indica as it specified that the exclusive jurisdiction would be Courts at Gurgaon\/ High Court at Chandigarh. The cause of action arose essentially in Gurgaon where the suit property is located and thus, the Courts at Gurgaon have exclusive jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Placing reliance on Jain Studios Ltd.<\/i> v Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.<\/i>, (2006) 5 SCC 501<\/a>, the Court noted that once a case has been decided on merits, the applicant on the grounds of review cannot be permitted to argue the main matter afresh. Once the prayer has been refused, no review petition would lie which would amount to re-hearing of the original matter.<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate powers which enable a superior Court to correct all errors committed by the subordinate court. There cannot be any re-hearing of the original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen the concluded adjudication. The power of review should be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court held that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is in the domain of challenging the order on merits which is beyond the scope of review. Such a petition is in the name of the second innings which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted.<\/p>\n

[Kush Raj Bhatia v. DLF Power & Services Limited 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4263<\/a>, decided on 06-12-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Mr. Akhil Salhar, Mr. Sunanda Tulsyan and Mr. Arnav Pal Singh, Advocates for the Petitioner;<\/p>\n

Ms. Meghna Mishra and Mr. Taurn Sharma, Advocates for the Respondent.<\/p>\n\n

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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”<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":279267,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[31647,3226,44195,10131,8331,3174,2543,2554,53534,44441,2897,15551,12161],"class_list":["post-279604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-adjudication","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-civil-procedure-code","tag-contract","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-Jurisdiction","tag-place-of-arbitration","tag-power-of-review","tag-Review","tag-seat-of-arbitration","tag-territorial-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi 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 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking review of the order\" \/>\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\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"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\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking review of the order\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-12-14T10:30:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-16T07:02:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"391\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"311\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 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\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/\",\"name\":\"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 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-12-14T10:30:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-16T07:02:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking review of the order\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"width\":391,\"height\":311,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"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\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"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 | SCC Times","description":"In a Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking review of the order","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\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"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","og_description":"In a Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking review of the order","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-12-14T10:30:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-16T07:02:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":391,"height":311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/","name":"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 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","datePublished":"2022-12-14T10:30:46+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-16T07:02:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking review of the order","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","width":391,"height":311,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/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\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"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"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":302690,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/30\/accrual-of-cause-of-action-substantive-legal-action-consideration-territorial-jurisdiction-dhc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":279604,"position":0},"title":"Accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing substantive legal action, not a consideration for determining territorial jurisdiction u\/s 11 of A&C Act, 1996: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"September 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAs per Clause 31.16 of Letter of Intent between parties, place of arbitration was Faridabad (Haryana), which will be chosen as the seat, since seat has not been separately named and there are no other contrary indicia to show that place of arbitration is not intended to be seat of\u2026","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\/2023\/05\/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\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"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":279604,"position":1},"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":324535,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/17\/del-hc-appoints-sole-arbitrator-despite-clause-specifying-two-arbitrators-upholds-parties-intention-to-arbitrate-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":279604,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court appoints sole arbitrator despite clause specifying two arbitrators; Upholds parties’ intention to arbitrate","author":"Editor","date":"June 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court noted Arbitration agreement specifying an even number of arbitrators cannot be a ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid. Appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) petition.","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":344348,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/25\/delhi-high-court-jurisdiction-arbitration-act-cpc-seat-dispute-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":279604,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court| Jurisdiction under S. 11 Arbitration Act must be determined by the CPC if the parties haven’t agreed on the arbitration seat or venue.","author":"Arunima","date":"March 25, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"It is a settled position in law that when the arbitration agreement is silent on the aspect of \u2018seat\u2019, \u2018venue\u2019 or \u2018place\u2019 of arbitration, the determining factor will be where the cause of action arises as well as where the defendant\/respondent actually or voluntarily resides or carries on their business.","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":203997,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":279604,"position":4},"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","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A 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\u00a0Arbitration to be in London. The petition was filed under Section 34 in a matter arising out of a\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":151124,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/08\/22\/petition-under-s-9-of-arbitration-conciliation-act-can-be-filed-only-before-the-civil-court-of-original-jurisdiction\/","url_meta":{"origin":279604,"position":5},"title":"Petition under S. 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act can be filed only before the civil court of original jurisdiction","author":"Saba","date":"August 22, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. held that such petition was not maintainable before the High Court. The petitioner prayed to the Court\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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279604","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=279604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279604\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/279267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=279604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=279604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=279604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}