Juridical seat and Section 9 jurisdiction: shifting hearings did not alter the seat, and English-law arbitration excluded Part I.

A contractual seat of arbitration fixed as Kuala Lumpur is not changed merely because hearings are shifted to Amsterdam or London for practical reasons; the juridical seat changes only by a valid written amendment or authorised designation, so the seat remained Kuala Lumpur. The arbitration agreement's express choice of English law was treated as excluding Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in this international commercial arbitration, which in turn ousted recourse to Section 9 in India. On that basis, the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contractual stipulation fixing Kuala Lumpur as the seat of arbitration was altered by the tribunal's shifting of hearings to Amsterdam and London and the parties' conduct, and (ii) whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to entertain the petition in view of the arbitration agreement governing law.

Issue (i): Whether the contractual stipulation fixing Kuala Lumpur as the seat of arbitration was altered by the tribunal's shifting of hearings to Amsterdam and London and the parties' conduct.

Analysis: The arbitration clause fixed Kuala Lumpur as the seat and permitted amendment only by a written instrument signed by all parties. The shifting of hearings caused by practical difficulties did not amount to a written amendment of the contract. A distinction was drawn between the juridical seat of arbitration and the place where hearings are physically held. Mere consent to conduct hearings at another place, without an agreed amendment of the arbitration clause, did not change the juridical seat.

Conclusion: The juridical seat remained Kuala Lumpur and was not shifted to London.

Issue (ii): Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to entertain the petition in view of the arbitration agreement governing law.

Analysis: Section 9 was considered in the context of the scheme of Part I as explained in prior precedent, which recognises that Part I can be excluded by express or implied agreement in international commercial arbitrations held outside India. The arbitration agreement provided that, notwithstanding the contract's general governing law, the arbitration agreement itself would be governed by English law. That choice was treated as excluding Part I of the Indian Act and therefore excluding recourse to the Indian court under Section 9 for the relief sought.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 petition.

Final Conclusion: The contractual seat of arbitration was not altered, and the parties' choice of English law for the arbitration agreement excluded the applicability of Part I of the Indian Act, so the Section 9 petition before the Delhi High Court was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In an international commercial arbitration, the juridical seat is changed only by a valid agreement or authorised designation, not by a mere change of venue for hearings, and Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be excluded by express or implied agreement so as to oust Section 9 jurisdiction.

---