Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of BGS SGS SOMA JV vs Lucknow would have exclusive jurisdiction in terms of the

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The Matter Under Article 227 No.25149 of 2021 has been filed challenging an order dated 20.10.2021 passed in Arbitration Petition No.116 of 2020 as well as the Matter Under Article 227 No.25161 of 2021 challenging the order dated 20.10.2021 passed in Arbitration Petition No.115 of 2020 whereby, the applications filed by the petitioner in both the arbitration petitions under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 read with Sections 42 and 20(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been rejected.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on account of an agreement in between the petitioner and the respondent, there existed an arbitration clause on the disputes occurring in between the parties. The said arbitration clause is on record. The paragraph 26.3.1 of the said clause is as under: "26.3.1- Any Dispute which is not resolved amicably by conciliation, as provided in Clause 26.2, shall be finally decided by reference to arbitration by a Board of Arbitrator appointed in accordance with Clause 26.3.2. Such arbitration shall beheld in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi ("the Rules") or such other rules as may be mutually agreed by the Parties, and shall be subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The venue of such arbitration shall be (New Delhi), and the language of arbitration proceedings shall be English."

4. It contained a further stipulation, which is as under: "27.1 Governing law and jurisdiction This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of India, and the courts at (Lucknow) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising out or relating to this Agreement."

5. In the light of the said stipulation, it is stated that as the respondents wanted to invoke bank guarantee, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on which, an interim order was passed on 02.08.2018 in DMP (COMM) No.311 of 2018 in favour of the petitioner. The said proceedings were concluded vide order dated 04.12.2018. Subsequent thereto in terms of the arbitration agreement, a panel of arbitrator was appointed, who passed the two awards at Delhi, by which the disputes in between the parties were adjudicated and the amounts as detailed in the award were passed in favour of the petitioner.

6. It is further argued that subsequent to the passing of the award, once again the respondents wanted to invoke the bank guarantee, as such, another application being OMP (I) (COMM) No.309 of 2020 was filed at Delhi High Court, in which an order came to be passed on 25.09.2020. It is stated that subsequent to the passing of the orders and the award, the respondents moved an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging the award before the Commercial Court, Lucknow. As the Commercial Court at Lucknow did not have the jurisdiction, the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the said objections under Section 34 of the Act on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The said application has been rejected by means of the impugned order.

7. Assailing the said order, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Aggarwal along with Ms. Aishwarya Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the court, where in an agreement, the seat of the arbitration is prescribed is no

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The Matter Under Article 227 No.25149 of 2021 has been filed challenging an order dated 20.10.2021 passed in Arbitration Petition No.116 of 2020 as well as the Matter Under Article 227 No.25161 of 2021 challenging the order dated 20.10.2021 passed in Arbitration Petition No.115 of 2020 whereby, the applications filed by the petitioner in both the arbitration petitions under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 read with Sections 42 and 20(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been rejected.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on account of an agreement in between the petitioner and the respondent, there existed an arbitration clause on the disputes occurring in between the parties. The said arbitration clause is on record. The paragraph 26.3.1 of the said clause is as under: "26.3.1- Any Dispute which is not resolved amicably by conciliation, as provided in Clause 26.2, shall be finally decided by reference to arbitration by a Board of Arbitrator appointed in accordance with Clause 26.3.2. Such arbitration shall beheld in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi ("the Rules") or such other rules as may be mutually agreed by the Parties, and shall be subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The venue of such arbitration shall be (New Delhi), and the language of arbitration proceedings shall be English."

4. It contained a further stipulation, which is as under: "27.1 Governing law and jurisdiction This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of India, and the courts at (Lucknow) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising out or relating to this Agreement."

5. In the light of the said stipulation, it is stated that as the respondents wanted to invoke bank guarantee, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on which, an interim order was passed on 02.08.2018 in DMP (COMM) No.311 of 2018 in favour of the petitioner. The said proceedings were concluded vide order dated 04.12.2018. Subsequent thereto in terms of the arbitration agreement, a panel of arbitrator was appointed, who passed the two awards at Delhi, by which the disputes in between the parties were adjudicated and the amounts as detailed in the award were passed in favour of the petitioner.

6. It is further argued that subsequent to the passing of the award, once again the respondents wanted to invoke the bank guarantee, as such, another application being OMP (I) (COMM) No.309 of 2020 was filed at Delhi High Court, in which an order came to be passed on 25.09.2020. It is stated that subsequent to the passing of the orders and the award, the respondents moved an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging the award before the Commercial Court, Lucknow. As the Commercial Court at Lucknow did not have the jurisdiction, the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the said objections under Section 34 of the Act on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The said application has been rejected by means of the impugned order.

7. Assailing the said order, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Aggarwal along with Ms. Aishwarya Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the court, where in an agreement, the seat of the arbitration is prescribed is no