Summary
The parties’ mutually agreed shift of arbitration from Jaipur to Ahmedabad, recorded in the unchallenged award, changed the juridical seat rather than merely the hearing venue. Ahmedabad courts consequently acquired exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over the section 34 challenge. The Rajasthan jurisdiction stipulation depended on Jaipur being the seat. The Court distinguished a contract requiring amendments by a signed written instrument and transferred the deposit while continuing the conditional execution stay.
Issues
- Whether the mutually agreed change to Ahmedabad changed the arbitral seat and the competent court for the section 34 challenge.
Provisions considered
- Section 20(1) and (3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The agreed substitution concerned the juridical seat, rather than merely a convenient venue for hearings. (¶ 10-17)
- Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The award challenge belonged before the courts at the substituted seat, Ahmedabad. (¶¶ 13, 17-19)
Held
- The arbitrator recorded that both parties had replaced Jaipur with Ahmedabad as the place of arbitration, and neither challenged that finding. On these facts, Ahmedabad became the seat under section 20(1), rather than a hearing location under section 20(3). (¶¶ 10-13, 16-17)
- Videocon was distinguishable because its contract required amendments through a signed written instrument. There was no corresponding clause here preventing the parties’ recorded mutual agreement from changing the seat. (¶ 14-16)
- Designation of the seat carries exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. The purchase-order provision for Rajasthan courts was linked to Jaipur as seat; reading the clause as a whole, the agreed substitution displaced that jurisdiction in favour of Ahmedabad. The separate business-transfer agreement, to which the respondent was not a party, did not govern this dispute. (¶¶ 4, 8, 13, 17-18)
- The section 34 merits remained for Ahmedabad. The Supreme Court deposit of Rs40 lakh was to be transferred to the competent forum there, and the execution stay continued until disposal unless that forum varied it. (¶ 18-19)
Result
Impugned judgment set aside; parties referred to Ahmedabad courts for the section 34 petition, with deposit transferred and execution stay continued subject to variation there. Appeal disposed of.