Foreign Seat of Arbitration: naming Hong Kong as the place of arbitration excludes Indian court jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.

An arbitration clause stating that disputes will be administered in Hong Kong and that the place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong ordinarily fixes Hong Kong as the juridical seat. On that reading, the arbitral process is governed by the law of the seat and supervisory jurisdiction lies with the courts of that place, so Indian courts do not have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) for a foreign-seated international commercial arbitration. The separate reference to Indian law, New Delhi courts, and interim relief in another clause does not alter the seat or confer Section 11 jurisdiction where the clause, read as a whole, points to a foreign seat.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitration agreement in Clause 17.2 of the MoU, providing for arbitration administered in Hong Kong and stating that the place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong, fixed Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration so as to exclude the jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The dispute was an international commercial arbitration because one party was incorporated in India and the other in Hong Kong. The clause had to be read as a whole. The reference to arbitration being administered in Hong Kong, together with the stipulation that the place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong, indicated that Hong Kong was not merely a convenient venue but the juridical seat. Once the seat is chosen, the law of that place governs the arbitral process and the courts of that place exercise supervisory jurisdiction. The separate reference to Indian law and New Delhi courts in Clause 17.1, read with the provision permitting provisional and injunctive relief, did not alter the seat or confer jurisdiction on Indian courts to appoint an arbitrator. Section 11 was not included in the proviso to Section 2(2), which extends only limited provisions of Part I to foreign-seated international commercial arbitrations. Accordingly, the petition under Section 11(6) was not maintainable in India.

Conclusion: Hong Kong was the seat of arbitration, and Indian courts had no jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator under Section 11(6).

Ratio Decidendi: In an arbitration agreement, a stipulation that disputes shall be finally resolved by arbitration administered at a named foreign place, coupled with that place being identified as the place of arbitration, ordinarily fixes that place as the seat and excludes Section 11 jurisdiction of Indian courts for a foreign-seated international commercial arbitration.

---