Monday, 12 October 2026

Supreme Court Allowed ·12 Oct 2026 ·Arbitration

Clauses name Delhi and Goa: Goa exclusive jurisdiction and Goa hearings make Goa the seat; Delhi High Court could not appoint arbitrator

The question: Whether Delhi or Goa is the juridical seat of arbitration when the arbitration clause mentions both places and the governing law clause gives exclusive jurisdiction to courts in Goa

The Supreme Court has held that where an arbitration clause names two places for the arbitration, one of them cannot automatically be treated as the juridical seat, and the governing law and jurisdiction clause of the agreement must be read to find the parties' intention. On that reading, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that Goa was the seat and Delhi merely the venue, and that the Delhi High Court therefore had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment is reported as 2026 INSC 1109. The dispute arose from a Franchise Agreement dated 3 August 2023 between Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Parshva Innovation. Clause 32.4 of the arbitration clause said the precise location of the arbitration shall be within Delhi, while Clause 32.5 said the arbitration proceedings will be held in Goa. Clause 38 submitted the parties to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent courts in Goa. The respondent proposed a sole arbitrator by notice of 25 March 2025. The appellant rejected the proposal on 19 April 2025. The respondent then moved the Delhi High Court, which by its order of 11 November 2025 appointed an arbitrator and left it to the arbitrator to choose the venue of hearings in consultation with the parties. The appellant came to the Supreme Court against that order. Leave was granted and the appeal was allowed.

C.A. No. 13663/2026

Supreme Court Allowed ·12 Oct 2026 ·Civil Procedure ★ Editor's pick

Supreme Court allows plaint amendment at belated stage to challenge a compromise decree, with Rs 25,000 costs; limitation question left open

The question: Whether the plaintiff showed due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC for an amendment sought after the trial had begun

The Supreme Court has set aside the Orissa High Court and a Cuttack trial court, and allowed a plaintiff's heirs to amend a plaint in a title suit filed in 2009. The amendment brings in a challenge to a compromise decree in another suit, which the original plaintiff says he learnt of only after obtaining certified copies on 22.06.2020. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, in the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan, held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was satisfied because due diligence was shown at this stage, and that the amendment did not change the nature and character of the suit. The appellants are the legal heirs of Rabindranath Sahoo, who filed C.S. No.86 of 2009 for a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, recovery of possession, rectification of registered sale deeds dated 15.02.1971 and 28.07.1978, and consequential reliefs. The deeds covered Hal Plot No.3370/4045 (Ac. 0.10 decimals) and Hal Plot No.3371/4050 (Ac. 0.02 decimals), together Ac. 0.12 decimals out of Ac. 0.16 decimals under Hal Khata No.198. According to the appellants, Plot No.3370/4045 passed through successive sale deeds from Defendant No.3 to Defendant No.2 (1976), to Defendant No.1 (2005) and to Defendant No.11 (2015). Plot No.3371/4050 was sold by Defendant No.8 to Defendant Nos.9 and 10 in 2007, and the source of title of Defendant No.8 was then unknown to the plaintiff. After Defendant Nos.9 and 10 disclosed their record entries in the written statement, the plaintiff first sought to amend the plaint to plead that this plot was the exclusive property of one Mayadhar Mohapatra under a mutual partition among purchasers under a registered sale deed of 1940. Those defendants denied this in an additional written statement. The plaintiff then filed a further application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. He said that a search in the Tahsildar's office at Niali showed a compromise decree in T.S. No.105 of 1998, to which he was not a party, and he sought to plead the foundational facts about that suit and a declaration that its final decree was null and void. The plaintiff died while the application was pending and the appellants were brought on record. The trial court rejected the application on 21.09.2022. The High Court dismissed C.M.P. No.1091 of 2022 on 10.04.2023, and the appellants came to the Supreme Court.

C.A. No. 13681/2026