https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383591 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. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jul 2019 07:13:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383591 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383591