Arbitration jurisdiction and exclusive forum clauses: tribunal decides validity objections, and a Bombay forum clause can exclude Calcutta jurisdiction.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, objections to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement are ordinarily to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not examined in detail by the civil court at the stage of injunctive relief. The tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, and a party should raise such objections before it, particularly where the party has already participated in the reference. The text also explains that a clear exclusive jurisdiction clause confining disputes to Bombay courts can validly exclude other competent courts, so a restraint order from the Calcutta court was unsustainable where territorial jurisdiction was excluded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement should be examined by the civil court at the stage of injunctive relief, or left to the arbitral tribunal. (ii) Whether the clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts at Bombay excluded the jurisdiction of the Calcutta court.

Issue (i): Whether the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement should be examined by the civil court at the stage of injunctive relief, or left to the arbitral tribunal.

Analysis: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reflects a policy of minimal judicial intervention. The arbitral tribunal is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections as to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. A party may therefore raise such objections before the tribunal, and the court should not undertake a detailed adjudication of contentious issues at the stage of appointment or continuation of arbitration. The respondent had also responded to the arbitral notice and remitted the arbitration fee, which reinforced the view that the arbitral forum could proceed and that jurisdictional objections could be taken there.

Conclusion: The objection regarding non-existence or invalidity of the arbitration agreement was not a basis for injuncting the arbitral proceedings, and the respondent was relegated to raise that plea before the arbitral tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether the clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts at Bombay excluded the jurisdiction of the Calcutta court.

Analysis: Where two or more courts otherwise have jurisdiction, parties may validly agree to confine disputes to one chosen forum. A clear and specific exclusive jurisdiction clause, such as one providing for Bombay courts and no other court, must be given effect. The trial court had found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the High Court ought not to have interfered on a merely arguable view without first recording a clear finding that Calcutta had jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The clause was held to exclude the jurisdiction of the Calcutta court, and the injunction granted by the High Court was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court restored the trial court's approach, held that the arbitration could proceed and that the Calcutta court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and therefore set aside the High Court's restraint order.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the 1996 arbitration regime, jurisdictional objections to the arbitration agreement are ordinarily to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, and a clear exclusive jurisdiction clause validly restricts disputes to the chosen competent court.

---