Lit Corner: Bombay High Court pronounces landmark ruling on seat of arbitration
Posted by By nishithadmin at 5 March, at 15 : 31 PM Print
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /web/qlc/nishith.tv/htdocs/wp-content/themes/Video/single_blog.php on line 46
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /web/qlc/nishith.tv/htdocs/wp-content/themes/Video/single_blog.php on line 52
BOMBAY HIGH COURT PRONOUNCES LANDMARK RULING ON SEAT OF ARBITRATION
MATTER BRIEF
The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Aniket SA Investments LLC v. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Private Limited (Commercial Appeal No. 504 of 2019) pronounced a landmark decision on the interplay between the ‘seat of arbitration’ and an ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ clause.
Aniket SA Investments LLC (the original Petitioner) had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking certain interim reliefs. The arbitration agreement between the parties stipulated that the ‘seat’ of arbitration was Mumbai. The governing law and jurisdiction clause specified that ‘subject to’ the arbitration clause, the courts of Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain any disputes arising out of the agreement. The Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court had dismissed the petition by holding that the courts at Hyderabad would have jurisdiction to hear applications arising out of the arbitration.
Aniket SA Investments LLC appealed this decision. The Hon’ble Division Bench allowed the appeal and held that:
- A choice of seat is in itself an expression of party autonomy and carries with it the effect of conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the seat.
- The choice of court at Hyderabad has clearly been made ‘subject to’ the arbitration clause. The plain language of the arbitration clause states that Mumbai is the chosen seat of arbitration. Therefore, the courts in Mumbai would have exclusive jurisdiction.
- Further, even if it was to be interpreted that two concurrent courts would have jurisdiction, the choice of courts at Hyderabad is made ‘subject to’ the seat at Mumbai, which amounts to a choice of courts at Mumbai.
The Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and directed that the Section 9 petition can proceed on merits before the Bombay High Court.
OUR ROLE
We, at Nishith Desai Associates, successfully acted as the legal counsel to Aniket SA Investments LLC, the original petitioner and appellant in this matter.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is available here.
Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific:Tier 1 for Government & Regulatory and Tax
2020, 2019, 2018
Legal500 Asia-Pacific:Tier 1 for Tax, Investment Funds, Labour & Employment and TMT
20a20, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012
Chambers and Partners Asia-Pacific:Band 1 for Employment, Lifesciences, Tax and TMT
2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015
IFLR1000:Tier 1 for Private Equity and Project Development: Telecommunications Networks.
2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2014
AsiaLaw Asia-Pacific Guide 2020:Ranked ‘Outstanding’ for TMT, Labour & Employment, Private Equity, Regulatory and Tax
FT Innovative Lawyers Asia Pacific 2019 Awards: NDA ranked 2nd in the Most Innovative Law Firm category (Asia-Pacific Headquartered)
RSG-Financial Times: India’s Most Innovative Law Firm
2019, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014
Who’s Who Legal 2020:
• Nishith Desai- Thought leader (Corporate Tax 2020, India 2020), Global leaders
(Private Funds 2020)
• Vikram Shroff-Global Leaders (Labour & Employment 2020, Pensions & Benefits 2020)
• Milind Antani- Pharma & Healthcare – only Indian Lawyer to be recognized for
‘Life sciences – Regulatory,’ for 5 years consecutively
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this hotline should not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.