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.