Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aniket SA Investments LLC, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures pending arbitral proceedings against the respondents, Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The dispute arose out of a Security Subscription and Shareholder Agreement dated 21 August 2008. The agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause (clause 20.3) stating that the courts of Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain any disputes arising out of the agreement. However, the arbitration clause (clause 20.4) designated Mumbai as the seat of arbitration. The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, arguing that the exclusive jurisdiction clause ousted the court's jurisdiction. The court examined the relevant clauses and held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement is a specific agreement between the parties that cannot be overridden by the arbitration clause which merely designates the seat. The seat of arbitration is for the conduct of arbitration proceedings, but the courts for interim measures under Section 9 are determined by the exclusive jurisdiction clause. Therefore, the Bombay High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 petition. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court (Hyderabad) for interim relief.
Headnote
A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Jurisdiction - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause - Where the agreement contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause vesting jurisdiction in the courts of Hyderabad, and the seat of arbitration is Mumbai, the court must determine which court has jurisdiction to entertain a Section 9 petition. The court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement (clause 20.3) is not ousted by the arbitration clause (20.4) which designates Mumbai as the seat. The parties had agreed that courts of Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain disputes arising out of the agreement. Therefore, the Bombay High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 petition. (Paras 1-3) B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Interim Measures - Jurisdiction - The court considered the interplay between an exclusive jurisdiction clause and the seat of arbitration. It held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement (clause 20.3) is a specific agreement between the parties that cannot be overridden by the arbitration clause which merely designates the seat. The seat of arbitration is for the conduct of arbitration proceedings, but the courts for interim measures under Section 9 are determined by the exclusive jurisdiction clause. (Paras 2-3) C) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Interim Measures - Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction - The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court (Hyderabad) for interim relief. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the agreement between the parties contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause vesting jurisdiction in the courts of Hyderabad, and the seat of arbitration is Mumbai.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate court (Hyderabad) for interim relief.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Seat of arbitration vs. exclusive jurisdiction for court intervention
- Interpretation of arbitration agreement clauses
