NLA Arbitration Newsletter
Covering Supreme Court and High Court rulings on the law governing arbitration agreements, seat versus venue, MSME Council jurisdiction, unconditional withdrawal of Section 11 petitions, delay in award publication, and the distinction between Section 9 and Section 11 proceedings.
Supreme Court — Court clarifies the law governing arbitration agreements, holding that Indian courts retain jurisdiction under Section 11 despite the arbitration venue being abroad when Indian law governs the main contract.
The Supreme Court of India examined the applicable law governing an arbitration agreement in the absence of an express choice. The Court reaffirmed that while party autonomy is paramount in arbitration, when the governing law of the arbitration agreement is not explicitly stated, the presumption favors the law governing the main contract (lex contractus). The judgment applied the well-established three-step test from Sulamérica Cia Nacional De Seguros S.A. v. Enesa Engenharia S.A., [2012] EWCA Civ 638, emphasizing that in the absence of an express choice, Courts should determine an implied choice based on contractual intent and, if necessary, apply the “closest and most real connection” test.
The dispute arose in an international commercial arbitration setting where the Petitioners, a foreign entity, sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Indian law, contending that Indian Courts had jurisdiction due to the contract being governed by Indian law. The Respondents opposed this, arguing that the arbitration should be conducted in Colombia under Colombian law, as the arbitration venue and procedural rules were stipulated to be those of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Chamber of Commerce of Bogotá. The Supreme Court analysed two key clauses in the agreement: Clause 16.5, which stipulated that the contract would be governed by Indian law and that Gujarat Courts would have jurisdiction over disputes, and Clause 18, which provided for arbitration in Bogotá, Colombia, under Colombian arbitration rules and stated that the award would be governed by Colombian law.
A primary issue before the Court was whether Clause 18, which referred to arbitration proceedings in Colombia, meant that Indian Courts lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court noted the absence of an express provision stating which law would govern the arbitration agreement itself. Applying the three-step test from Sulamérica, it first found that there was no express choice of law governing the arbitration agreement. Moving to the second step, the Court determined that there was a strong presumption in favour of the law governing the main contract, which was Indian law. This was reinforced by Clause 16.5, which provided for Indian law to govern the agreement and disputes arising from it. At the third stage, applying the “closest and most real connection” test, the Court found that Indian law had the closest connection to the arbitration agreement because the contract as a whole was governed by Indian law and Gujarat Courts had been given jurisdiction.
The Court rejected the argument that choosing Colombia as the arbitration venue implied that Colombian law governed the arbitration agreement. It emphasized that the seat of arbitration carries legal significance, but a mere designation of venue does not automatically displace the governing law of the contract. The Court also stressed the principle that conflicting contractual clauses should be harmonized wherever possible rather than interpreted in isolation. It ruled that Clause 16.5 and Clause 18 were not mutually exclusive — Indian law could govern the arbitration agreement while arbitration proceedings could take place in Colombia.
Ultimately, the Court held that Indian Courts retained jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator. It clarified that while arbitration would take place in Colombia, the arbitration agreement itself was subject to Indian law, and procedural rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre would apply. The ruling reinforces the importance of clarity in drafting arbitration clauses and provides significant guidance on resolving conflicts in contractual interpretation in international commercial arbitration.
Key Takeaway
When the governing law of an arbitration agreement is not expressly stated, courts apply the three-step test from Sulamérica: first, look for an express choice; second, determine an implied choice based on the law of the main contract (lex contractus); and third, apply the “closest and most real connection” test. A foreign arbitration venue alone does not displace Indian law as the governing law of the arbitration agreement where the main contract is governed by Indian law.
Patna High Court — Court holds that in the absence of an express seat clause, the court at the designated arbitration venue has exclusive jurisdiction.
The Patna High Court held that in the absence of an express clause specifying the seat of arbitration, the Court mentioned in the venue clause would have exclusive jurisdiction. The Court clarified that where a contract only designates a venue without explicitly defining the seat, it must be presumed that the parties intended for the arbitration to be conducted at that location with the Courts of that place exercising jurisdiction. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 462, reinforcing the principle that where the contract specifies a particular location as the arbitration venue, jurisdiction is exclusive to that place.
The dispute arose out of a dealership agreement under which the Petitioner was to act as a dealer for electric vehicles manufactured by the Respondent. Due to delays in vehicle supply, the Petitioner terminated the agreement and invoked the arbitration clause, requesting the Respondent to either consent to its nominated arbitrator or propose an alternative. Since the parties failed to mutually agree on an arbitrator, the Petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator.
The Respondent opposed the petition, contending that Clause 36.3 of the agreement explicitly designated New Delhi as the venue of arbitration and that, therefore, only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction over the dispute. The Petitioner, however, relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ravi Ranjan Developers (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 568, which distinguished between seat and venue and held that the mere designation of a venue does not automatically confer jurisdiction.
The Patna High Court analysed these competing arguments and sided with the Respondent, emphasizing that Brahmani River Pellets Limited had already established the principle that if a contract specifies a Court at a particular location, only that Court would have jurisdiction, thereby excluding all other Courts. The Court found that the agreement in question did not contain any express clause specifying the seat of arbitration; rather, it only provided for New Delhi as the venue. Consequently, the Court concluded that the designation of New Delhi as the arbitration venue must be interpreted as an intention to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.
The Court rejected the Petitioner’s reliance on Ravi Ranjan Developers, stating that the case did not apply in situations where the agreement contained no separate seat clause. Since the agreement only mentioned venue, and there was no conflicting provision specifying a different seat, the Court ruled that the venue must be treated as the seat by default. On these grounds, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition, holding that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain arbitration-related proceedings.
Key Takeaway
In India, the seat of arbitration refers to the legal jurisdiction that governs the arbitration process, determining the applicable laws and which courts have authority over the proceedings, while the venue is simply the physical location where hearings take place. Where a contract designates a location as the arbitration venue without a separate seat clause, courts will treat the venue as the seat by default, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at that location.
Karnataka High Court — Court holds that the MSME Council has the obligation to refer matters to arbitration and cannot pass an award on account of failure of conciliation proceedings.
The dispute arose when the Petitioner placed a purchase order with the Second Respondent on 14.02.2013 for the supply of materials. Due to non-payment of the full amount, the Second Respondent initiated conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. Multiple meetings were conducted by the Karnataka MSME Council, which ultimately issued an award on 14.03.2017, directing the Petitioner to pay ₹11,88,756 as the principal outstanding amount, along with interest at three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India.
The Petitioner challenged this award, arguing that since only conciliation proceedings had taken place, the Council lacked jurisdiction to pass an award. According to the Petitioner, once conciliation failed, the Council was required by law to either terminate conciliation and take up arbitration itself or refer the matter to institutional arbitration. The Respondent, however, contended that the only available recourse was under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, which requires a deposit before a challenge to an award can be entertained, and thus the writ petition was not maintainable.
The Karnataka High Court, after analysing Section 18 of the MSMED Act, ruled in favour of the Petitioner. The Court noted that under Section 18(2), the MSME Council can conduct conciliation on its own or refer it to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) institution. However, under Section 18(3), if conciliation fails, the Council is legally obligated to either conduct arbitration itself or refer the matter to an arbitral institution, treating the dispute as if it were governed by an arbitration agreement under Section 7(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court found that the Council erred in passing an award despite conciliation failing, without following the arbitration process prescribed under the Act. It observed that the Council had reached a unilateral conclusion that the claim of the Respondent was credible without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to file objections, present evidence, or contest the claim in an arbitration proceeding. This was a fundamental violation of procedural fairness and a clear jurisdictional error. The Court further held that since the award was issued without legal authority, it was non est in law, meaning it had no legal existence.
Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, set aside the award, and remitted the matter back to the Karnataka MSME Council. It directed the Council to formally terminate the conciliation proceedings and thereafter decide whether to conduct arbitration itself or refer the dispute to an arbitral institution. The ruling serves as a crucial precedent ensuring that MSME Councils adhere to statutory procedural requirements and do not exceed their jurisdiction in dispute resolution.
Key Takeaway
The MSME Council in India is a quasi-judicial body established to resolve disputes between MSMEs and buyers under the MSMED Act, 2006. When conciliation fails under Section 18(3), the Council must formally conduct arbitration itself or refer the matter to an arbitral institution — it cannot bypass arbitration and issue an award directly. Doing so renders the award non est in law, challengeable by writ even where Section 19 normally requires a pre-deposit.
Delhi High Court — Court holds that unconditional withdrawal of a prior Section 11 petition bars a subsequent petition on the same cause of action.
The dispute arose out of a contract between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, which pertained to the construction of a Staff Training Institute Building and other ancillary works, with a contract value of ₹13.57 Crores. The Petitioner had previously filed two petitions under Section 11 for the appointment of an arbitrator. The first petition, Arb P. 24/2017, was filed after the Petitioner invoked arbitration on 28.09.2016. The Court had permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to refile with better particulars on 16.01.2017. However, the Petitioner entered into a settlement agreement with the Respondents on 23.02.2017 instead of refiling. The second petition, Arb P. 277/2021, was filed on 18.02.2021, and was withdrawn unconditionally on 02.08.2022, without liberty to refile. The current petition was filed based on a fresh notice dated 08.08.2022, following the invocation of Bank Guarantees by Respondent No. 2.
The Court examined the implications of the unconditional withdrawal of the second petition, referring to Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC, which prevents the institution of fresh proceedings on the same cause of action when a previous petition has been withdrawn without liberty. The Court noted that even though Order 23 Rule 1 refers to suits, its principles apply equally to petitions filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court relied on previous judgments such as HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3190, where the Supreme Court extended these principles to arbitration petitions, and BSNL v. Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd., (2021) 5 SCC 738, which addressed the issue of res judicata in arbitration proceedings.
The Court observed that the Petitioner had voluntarily chosen to withdraw the second petition without liberty, despite the invocation of the Bank Guarantees occurring during the pendency of that petition. The invocation of Bank Guarantees on 12.04.2022 did not create a new cause of action, as it occurred while the second petition was still pending. In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the present petition, emphasizing that the Petitioner was precluded from filing a fresh petition due to the unconditional withdrawal of the second petition. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the implications of withdrawal in arbitration-related proceedings.
Key Takeaway
An unconditional withdrawal of a Section 11 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without explicit liberty to refile, bars any subsequent petition on the same cause of action by operation of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC. Parties must be acutely aware that this procedural bar applies to arbitration petitions just as it does to civil suits, and subsequent events arising from the same root cause of action will not rescue an otherwise barred claim.
Delhi High Court — Court rules that delay in publication of an award does not invalidate it unless the delay has materially affected the rights of the parties.
The case involved a contract for work between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, valued at ₹1,53,054. The contract was to be completed by 31.10.1999; however, the work was finished only on 03.04.2000, following an extension of time. The dispute was referred to arbitration, with the arbitrator entering the reference on 03.09.2002. The final hearing was conducted on 04.08.2004, but the award was rendered only on 11.05.2005, after an inordinate delay of nine months. Dissatisfied with the award, the Appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award before the Additional District Judge (ADJ). The ADJ dismissed the objections on 03.02.2010, and the Appellant appealed under Section 37.
The Appellant argued that the nine-month delay in the publication of the award after the final hearing rendered the award invalid. The Appellant further contended that the award was legally defective as it failed to address the disputes outlined in the arbitration agreement, and also raised concerns regarding the invalidity of the stamp paper, which expired six months after the final hearing.
The Court, in its analysis, reiterated the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting that the Court does not act as an appellate body. Relying on precedents such as MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163 and Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1063), the Court stressed that judicial intervention under Section 34 should be limited to situations where there is illegality, perversity, or violation of public policy.
The Court further discussed the concept of “public policy of India” under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), referencing ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705, which clarified that an award in violation of statutory provisions could be considered against public policy. However, in the present case, the Court found no such violation. The Court acknowledged the delay in the publication of the award but held that the delay did not invalidate the award unless it could be shown that the delay had materially affected the rights of the parties. The Appellant did not demonstrate that the delay had prejudiced their case in any significant manner. Accordingly, the appeal under Section 37 was dismissed.
Key Takeaway
In Indian law, the term “material effect” refers to a significant or substantial impact on a legal right, obligation, or outcome. In the context of arbitration, delay in the publication of an award does not by itself invalidate it; the challenging party must affirmatively demonstrate that the delay materially prejudiced their substantive rights. Courts under Section 34 will not interfere with an award merely on account of procedural irregularities that did not alter the outcome.
Bombay High Court — Court clarifies that simultaneous invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration Act does not constitute parallel proceedings.
The matter arose from an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. The dispute between the parties originated under an Investment Agreement, where the Applicant invoked the arbitration clause. The Respondent argued that arbitration could not proceed simultaneously under both Section 9 and Section 11, as it would result in parallel proceedings.
In the previous decision of the Single Bench of the Bombay High Court, the Court granted interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Act in July 2024, which required the Respondent to disclose certain information. However, the Respondent’s compliance with the disclosure order was called into question in this appeal, as the document provided contained minimal information. The Court distinguished between the two provisions. It noted that Section 9 is intended to provide temporary interim relief to preserve the subject matter of arbitration, while Section 11 concerns the appointment of an arbitrator when there is a dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Court emphasized that the invocation of these sections does not amount to parallel proceedings, as they serve different functions in the arbitration process.
The Bench also observed that the Respondent had not appealed the Section 9 order or sought intervention, which further supported the view that the invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 were not contradictory or parallel proceedings. It referred to Section 11(6A) of the Act, which limits the Court’s jurisdiction to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement, while substantive questions regarding the scope and validity of disputes are to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. Ultimately, the Court referred the matter to arbitration, appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Investment Agreement.
Key Takeaway
Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, serve distinct and complementary roles: Section 9 provides interim relief to preserve the subject matter of arbitration, while Section 11 pertains to the appointment of an arbitrator. Invoking both simultaneously is not a case of parallel proceedings; they operate at different stages and for different purposes within the arbitral framework.
© Nirka Law Advisory. All rights reserved. For queries, connect with us.
