Summary
The agreement specifying Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration was construed as excluding other courts for appointment of the arbitrator. Express words such as “alone” or “exclusive” were unnecessary to that conclusion on the clause and circumstances considered. The Madras High Court’s appointment order was set aside, leaving the parties free to seek appointment from the Orissa High Court.
Issues
- Whether the agreed Bhubaneswar arbitration venue excluded the Madras High Court’s section 11 appointment jurisdiction.
Held
- Party autonomy governs selection of the arbitral place, and designation of the juridical seat carries supervisory-jurisdiction consequences. The Court applied the principles in BALCO, Swastik Gases and Indus Mobile to construe the clause before it. (¶ 9–15)
- By agreeing that arbitration would be at Bhubaneswar, the parties intended on this agreement to exclude other courts. Absence of words such as exclusive, alone or only did not defeat that intention. (¶ 16)
- The Madras High Court therefore could not make the section 11(6) appointment; the competent forum for that application was the Orissa High Court. (¶ 17–18)
Result
Appeal allowed; Madras High Court’s arbitrator-appointment order set aside. Parties at liberty to approach the Orissa High Court for appointment. Contractual merits left undecided.