Himadri Speciality Chemicals Limited Vs Jindal Coke Limited (Supreme Court of India)
The dispute arose out of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.12.2024 for supply of Coal Tar. The agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause 14) providing that disputes would be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with the venue of arbitration at New Delhi. However, Clause 13 stipulated that courts at Jajpur would have exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the agreement. Disputes arose when the respondent denied the binding nature of the agreement and a civil suit was filed. The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Arbitration Clause Prevails Over General Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi HC
Before the High Court, the respondent objected to jurisdiction, contending that Clause 13 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Jajpur. The High Court examined the interplay between the jurisdiction clause and the arbitration clause. Relying on precedents including Yassh Deep Builders LLP v. Sushil Kumar Singh, Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd., Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. and Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd., the Court reiterated that once a venue of arbitration is designated, it ordinarily amounts to the juridical seat unless there are contrary indications. The seat confers exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings. The arbitration clause was held to be distinct from the general jurisdiction clause, and the venue at New Delhi was treated as the seat of arbitration. Consequently, the High Court held that it had jurisdiction and appointed Ms. V. Mohana, Senior Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). All rights and contentions were left open.
