CLOSE
13 December 2021 | Arjun Sethi v. All About Outdoor Pvt. Ltd.| Arb. P. 1056 of 2021 | Sanjeev Narula J | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5343
Before it, the court had an arbitration clause under which the venue of arbitration was Gurugram, and courts in Gurugram had exclusive jurisdiction. However, the parties were to apply to the Delhi High Court for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
[Ed. Note: The court emphasises the venue clause versus the appointing clause in its reasoning. However, it seems conscious that the seat of arbitration was also Gurugram (because courts there had exclusive jurisdiction as well). The court also notes that Cars24 Services had an identical clause. In that case, the seat was Delhi, but the appointing authority was a court at Haryana; so, the Delhi High Court enforced the clause and declined jurisdiction.]
Read the decision here.
Categories: Appointment of Arbitrators | BGS Soma | Choice of Seat | Designation of Arbitral Seat | Exclusive Jurisdiction | Party Autonomy | Party Autonomy to Select Appointing Authority | Place | Place of Arbitration | Seat | Seat of Arbitration | Section 11 ACA | Section 20 ACA | Tests for Determination of Seat | Venue | Venue of Arbitration