Contractual seat and exclusive jurisdiction prevailed over MSME Council venue, preserving Delhi court control over the Section 34 challenge.

Contractual arbitration and jurisdiction clauses were construed together to hold that New Delhi remained the agreed seat and that the Delhi courts had exclusive territorial jurisdiction, despite blanks in the clauses. Section 18 of the MSME Act was treated as governing the MSME Council's conciliation and arbitration process by reference to the supplier's location, but not as displacing the parties' chosen seat or forum selection clause; the Act did not oust the Delhi court's jurisdiction over a Section 34 challenge. Pending writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court did not bar the Section 34 petition, as they concerned the Council proceedings and did not determine the court's jurisdiction. The jurisdictional ruling was set aside and the matter restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contractual clauses concerning arbitration and jurisdiction conferred exclusive territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi courts despite the blanks left in the clauses; (ii) whether the jurisdictional scheme under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 displaced the parties' agreed seat and jurisdiction clause so as to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Thane courts; (iii) whether the pending writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court barred the appellant from seeking relief under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether the contractual clauses concerning arbitration and jurisdiction conferred exclusive territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi courts despite the blanks left in the clauses.

Analysis: The arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause were read together as part of a commercial contract. The blanks were not treated as evidence of absence of consensus; rather, on a plain reading, the agreed reference to New Delhi remained the selected venue and juridical seat. The use of the words indicating exclusivity and the structure of the clauses showed an intention to exclude other courts. The principles governing commercial contract interpretation and the distinction between seat and venue supported this construction.

Conclusion: The Delhi courts had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the jurisdictional scheme under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 displaced the parties' agreed seat and jurisdiction clause so as to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Thane courts.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 18 was held to govern the MSME Council's role in conciliation and arbitration based on the supplier's location, but that statutory location was treated as determining only the venue of the council proceedings and not the contractual seat fixed by the parties. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 continued to apply to the dispute, and the agreed jurisdiction clause was not nullified by the MSME Act's overriding operation.

Conclusion: The MSME Act did not oust the contractual jurisdiction of the Delhi courts.

Issue (iii): Whether the pending writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court barred the appellant from seeking relief under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The writ petition was directed against the MSME Council proceedings and did not determine or exclude the civil court's jurisdiction under Section 34. Its pendency did not operate as a bar to the challenge against the award before the competent court.

Conclusion: The writ proceedings did not bar the Section 34 petition.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment on jurisdiction was set aside, the petition was restored for decision on merits, and the appellant secured the jurisdictional relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties agree to New Delhi as the venue and confer exclusive jurisdiction in the arbitration clause, the contractual seat and forum selection prevail over the location-based venue of MSME Council proceedings, and Section 18 of the MSME Act does not displace that agreed jurisdiction for a Section 34 challenge.

---