Arbitral seat determines jurisdiction: a venue clause can exclude other courts even without express exclusivity words.

A contractual designation of Bhubaneswar as the arbitral venue was treated as the juridical seat, giving the court with supervisory control over that place exclusive jurisdiction to act under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Applying Sections 2(1)(e), 2(2) and 20, and giving effect to party autonomy, the Court held that once the agreement fixes the seat or venue in a manner attracting a particular court, other competent courts are excluded, even if the clause does not use words such as "exclusive", "only" or "alone". On that reasoning, the Madras High Court lacked jurisdiction and the Orissa High Court alone could appoint the arbitrator.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of the arbitration clause fixing Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration, the Madras High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement designated Bhubaneswar as the venue, and the Court treated that designation, in the context of the agreement and the governing arbitration law, as indicating the juridical seat and the forum for supervisory control over the arbitral process. Relying on the scheme of Sections 2(1)(e), 2(2) and 20 of the Act, and the principles recognising party autonomy and the exclusion of other competent courts by a clear jurisdictional choice, the Court held that where the parties fix the arbitral seat or venue in a manner that attracts a particular court, that court alone has jurisdiction to act under Section 11(6). The absence of words such as "exclusive", "only" or "alone" was held to be not decisive.

Conclusion: The Madras High Court lacked jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator under Section 11(6); jurisdiction lay only with the Orissa High Court, and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual designation of the arbitral seat or venue confers jurisdiction on the court having supervisory control over that place, and where that place is identified in the agreement, other competent courts are excluded even without express words of exclusivity.

---