The petitioner challenged the arbitrator's decision to change the arbitration venue to Aurangabad, arguing that the agreed venue per contract was Dhule. The Court held that under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitrator had the power to choose a venue for convenience when no agreement existed on the venue, provided it did not conflict with the agreement on the seat of arbitration. The petition was dismissed, confirming the arbitrator’s decision to hold proceedings in Aurangabad.

1. Introduction of the Case (Para 1-2):
   The petitioner challenges an interim order passed by the arbitrator regarding the venue of arbitration.

2. Agreement on Arbitration Venue (Para 3-7):
   The petitioner contends that the agreed venue for arbitration per the contract was Dhule, and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to alter it.

3. Petitioner's Argument on Legal Provisions (Para 5-6):
   The petitioner highlights Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the arbitrator violated the Act by changing the venue from Dhule to Aurangabad.

4. Respondent's Defense (Para 9-12):
   The respondent counters that Clause 19.3(b) of the agreement refers to the seat of arbitration, and the arbitrator had discretion regarding the venue based on convenience.

5. Legal Discussion on Arbitration Venue (Para 13-16):
   The court examines Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Clause 19.3(b) of the agreement, emphasizing the distinction between seat and venue in arbitration.

6. Judicial Precedents Supporting the Arbitrator's Power (Para 17-24):
   Various judgments are cited, supporting the arbitrator's authority to determine a convenient venue for arbitration when the agreement does not specify it.

7. Court’s Conclusion and Ratio (Para 25-30):
   The Court held that the arbitrator acted within their discretion, as the agreed seat (Dhule) was not suitable for conducting the proceedings.

Ratio of the Judgment:

The court upheld that while parties are free to agree on the seat of arbitration, the arbitrator has discretion to change the venue for procedural convenience under Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A venue change does not affect the seat of arbitration and is permissible if it facilitates smoother proceedings.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
  • Section 20(1): Parties can agree on the place of arbitration (seat).
  • Section 20(2): If no agreement exists, the arbitral tribunal can determine the place of arbitration based on the case's circumstances.
  • Section 20(3): The arbitral tribunal may meet at any place for convenience, such as hearing witnesses or inspection of evidence, unless otherwise agreed.

Subjects:

Arbitration, Venue of Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Contractual Disputes

Venue Change, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clause Interpretation