Foreign seat under ICC arbitration clause excludes Part I and removes Indian court jurisdiction over Section 34 challenge.

An arbitration clause naming London as the venue, together with ICC Rules, English-language hearings and no contrary indicators, was treated as fixing London as the juridical seat; Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was therefore excluded. Once the arbitration was found to be seated outside India, Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction over a Section 34 challenge, and that jurisdiction could not be created by consent, conduct or the mere filing of proceedings in India. The Section 34 petition was held not maintainable in India, and the jurisdictional view taken by the High Court was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitration clause designating London as the venue, read with the ICC Rules and the governing-law clause, fixed London as the juridical seat and thereby excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) whether the Indian courts had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 challenge notwithstanding the filing of proceedings in India.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitration clause designating London as the venue, read with the ICC Rules and the governing-law clause, fixed London as the juridical seat and thereby excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The clause provided for arbitration under the ICC Rules, hearings in English, and London as the venue, while the agreement was governed by Indian law. The Court held that the distinction between venue and seat cannot be resolved in the abstract and must be ascertained from the clause and surrounding indicators. It further held that the principle that a venue designation, coupled with supranational procedural rules and no contrary indicia, may denote the juridical seat had been accepted in the governing precedents relied upon.

Conclusion: London was treated as the juridical seat, and Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stood excluded.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian courts had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 challenge notwithstanding the filing of proceedings in India.

Analysis: The Court held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, conduct, or filing of proceedings where the statute does not otherwise vest it. Once the arbitration was found to be seated outside India and Part I excluded, the Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral challenge. The territorial and procedural objections in India therefore could not sustain the Section 34 proceeding.

Conclusion: The Indian courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's view on jurisdiction was set aside, and the Section 34 challenge was held not maintainable in India.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration agreement, read as a whole, designates a foreign juridical seat and the surrounding terms show an intention to exclude Part I, Indian courts do not retain supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral challenge, and jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or filing alone.

---