INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED versus DATAWIND INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 19-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 4 S.C.R. 744 
A 
INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
DATAWIND INNOVATIONS PRNATE LIMITED & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5370-71 of2017) 
. B 
APRIL 19,2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.20 - Juri::diction 
for regulating arbitral proceedings - Seat of arbitration fixed at 
C Mumbai - Whether exclusive jurisdiction clause in an agreement 
stating that the courts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction in 
respect of dispute arising between the parties under the agreement 
would oust all other courts - Held: Once the seat of arbitration is 
fixed, it would be in nature of an exCZusive jurisdiction clause as to 
the courts which exercise supervisory powers over the arbitration -
D Any claim for reme({Y is agreed to be made only in the courts of the 
place designated as the seat of arbitration - On facts, the moment 
"seat" is determined, the fact that the seat is at Mumbai would vest 
Mumbai courts with exclusive jurisdiction for purpose of regulating 
arbitral proceedings arising out of the agreement between .the 
parties - Jurisdiction . 
. E 
F 
Words and Phrases - 'Place', 'juridical seat', 'venue', 'seat' -
Meaning of - In terms of s.20 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 
I 996 - Discussed. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. A conspectus of all the relevant provisions of 
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shows that the moment 
--
the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. 
On the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seat of 
arbitration is Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear that 
G jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Mumbai courts. Under the 
Law of Arbitration, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which 
applies to suits filed in courts, a reference to "seat" is a concept 
by which a neutral venue can be chosen by the parties to an, 
arbitration clause. The neutral venue may not in the classical 
sense have jurisdiction - that is, no part of the cause of action 
H 
744 
INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD v. DATAWIND 
745 
INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LTD. 
may have arisen at the neutral venue and neither would any of A 
the provisions of Section 16 to 21 of the CPC be attracted. In 
arbitration law however, the moment "seat" is determined, the 
fact that the seat is at Mumbai would vest Mumbai courts with 
exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes of regulating arbitral 
proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties. B 
(Para 20) (759-B-D] 
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical 
Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 : [2012) 12 SCR 327; 
Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon Gmbh (2014) 5 SCC 1 
: [2014) 2 SCR 855 - relied on. 
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 
603 : [2014) 6 SCR 456; Harmony Innovation Shipping 
Limited v. Gupta Coal India Limited and Another (2015) 
9 SCC 172 : [2015) 2 SCR 697; Union of India v. 
Reliance Industries Limited and Others (2015) 10 SCC 
213 : (2015) 10 SCR 85; Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura 
Minechem Limited and Another (2016) 11 SCC 508 : 
(2016) 2 SCR 634; Swastik Gases Private Limited v. 
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2013) 9 SCC 32 : 
(2013) 7 SCR 581; B.E. Simoese Von Staraburg 
Niedenthal and Another v. Chhattisgarh Investment 
Limited (2015) 12 SCC 225 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2012) 12 SCR 327 
relied on 
Para 10 
(2014) 2 SCR 855 
relied on 
Para 13 
(2014) 6 SCR 456 
referred to 
Para 15 
(2015) 2 SCR 697 
referred to 
Para 15 
[2015) 10 SCR 85 
referred to 
Para 15 
(2016) 2 SCR 634 
referred to 
Para 16 
[2013) 7 SCR 581 
referred to 
Para 21 
(2015) 12 sec 225 
referred to 
Para 21 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 4 S.C.R. 
' 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDICtION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5370-
B 
5371 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2016 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Arbitration Petition No. 592 of2015 and 0. M. 
P. (I) No. 531 of2015. 
K. S. Mahadevan, Krishna Kumar R. S., Rajesh Kuma:, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Kuna! Sachdeva, ImranAli, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeals raise an interesting question as to whether, 
when the seat of arbitration is Mumbai, an exclusive jurisdiction clause 
stating that the courts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction in respect 
D of disputes arising under the agreement would 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.