Place of arbitration decided under party autonomy is not an interim award and cannot be challenged under section 34.

A contractual or institutional determination of the place of arbitration, made under the parties' agreed mechanism, is not an arbitral award or interim award when it does not decide any substantive dispute or claim. The agreement and section 20 recognised party autonomy to fix the venue through an authorised process, and that machinery decision merely regulated the conduct of arbitration. Because it was not a judicial determination of rights on the merits, it was not amenable to challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decision by the Joint Arbitration Committee fixing the venue or place of arbitration under the agreement was an interim award amenable to challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The agreement made a clear distinction between the adjudication of disputes by the arbitral tribunal and the prior determination of the place of arbitration by a Joint Arbitration Committee if the parties could not agree. The statutory scheme also treated party autonomy as extending to authorising a person or institution to determine such an issue, and section 20 recognised the parties' freedom to agree on the place of arbitration. A determination of venue under this mechanism did not decide any substantive dispute or claim arising out of the contract, nor did it possess the characteristics of an arbitral award or interim award. It was only a machinery decision on venue, not a judicial determination of rights in the arbitration.

Conclusion: The decision fixing the venue of arbitration was not an interim award and was not appealable under section 34; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual or institutional determination of the place of arbitration, made under the parties' authorised mechanism and not adjudicating a dispute or claim on merits, is not an arbitral award or interim award and therefore is not challengeable under section 34.

---