Justice C. Hari Shankar, delivering the judgment on March 17, 2025, held that when parties specifically agree to exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court for arbitration applications, such clauses override considerations of arbitral seat.
"Clause 20, insofar as it confers exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Rudrapur over applications under the 1996 Act, stands as it is," the judge noted, referring to the original rental agreement between the parties.
The case involved a dispute over a rental property in Uttarakhand. While the parties had subsequently agreed via email to conduct arbitration in Delhi, the original agreement contained a clause specifically vesting jurisdiction with courts at Rudrapur for "any application to be made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
Precitech had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim protection regarding machinery and equipment at the disputed premises. They argued that since arbitration was seated in Delhi and another petition was already pending before the Delhi High Court, Section 42 of the Act required all subsequent applications to be filed in the same court.
Justice Shankar disagreed, stating: "Section 42, no doubt, requires every subsequent application, or petition, to be preferred before a Court which is first approached in connection with the arbitration, but is dependent on the obvious premise that the first court had jurisdiction."
Drawing on his previous rulings in Cars24 Services and Hunch Circle cases, the judge distinguished between general exclusive jurisdiction clauses and those specifically covering arbitration applications:
"Once the parties have, ad idem, agreed to courts at Rudrapur having exclusive jurisdiction to 'determine any question issue dispute or claim between the parties including but not limited to any application to be made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996', any application, under the 1996 Act... would have to be preferred at Rudrapur/Uttarakhand, and nowhere else."
The ruling establishes an important precedent in arbitration law, clarifying that when contracts contain specific jurisdiction clauses for arbitration applications, these prevail over general principles linking jurisdiction to arbitral seat.
Precitech was represented by Mr. L.B. Rai, while Rudrapur was represented by Mr. Avdhesh Chaudhary.
Read The Judgment Here
keywords: arbitration jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction clause, arbitral seat, Delhi High Court, Section 9 petition, territorial jurisdiction
