Arbitration seat and exclusive jurisdiction depend on the contract and actual proceedings, not the underlying cause of action.

An arbitration agreement will confer exclusive court jurisdiction only if the main contract or another operative clause clearly fixes it; a jurisdiction clause in a separate instrument, such as an Integrity Pact, does not govern disputes under the main agreement. Where no contractual seat is specified and the venue is left to arbitral discretion, the actual conduct of proceedings and place of award become significant in identifying the seat. Applying the distinction between juridical seat and cause of action, the Delhi High Court treated Pathankot as the seat because the arbitration was conducted there and the award was made there. A Section 34 challenge therefore lies before the court having jurisdiction over that seat.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement between the parties conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Delhi for a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) whether the seat of arbitration was Delhi or Pathankot.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement between the parties conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Delhi for a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The arbitration clause in the main agreement did not stipulate any exclusive jurisdiction clause or seat of arbitration. The reliance on the Integrity Pact was rejected because its jurisdiction stipulation concerned that document and not disputes arising under the main agreement. The dispute resolution mechanism in the Integrity Pact was separate and was not intended to govern contractual disputes under the agreement.

Conclusion: No exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Delhi was found.

Issue (ii): Whether the seat of arbitration was Delhi or Pathankot.

Analysis: In the absence of any contractual stipulation fixing the seat, and with the venue left to the arbitrator's discretion, the place where the arbitral proceedings were actually conducted assumed significance. The proceedings were conducted entirely in Pathankot and the award was made there. The settled distinction between the juridical seat of arbitration and the underlying cause of action was applied, and the fact that the contract was executed or performed in Delhi did not determine seat.

Conclusion: The seat of arbitration was held to be Pathankot.

Final Conclusion: The Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenge under Section 34, so the petition was rejected and the petitioner was left to pursue relief before the competent court.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or other contrary indicia, the seat of arbitration follows the place where the arbitral proceedings are actually anchored, and that seat alone governs jurisdiction for a Section 34 challenge notwithstanding the underlying cause of action.

---