Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Pritam Singh & Ors.
Background
A dispute arose under a Joint Development Agreement whose arbitration clause named both Roorkie (Uttarakhand) and Delhi as possible seat/venue for arbitration, while a separate jurisdiction clause gave courts at Roorkie exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the agreement. The petitioner filed for interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Delhi High Court, arguing that since he filed first, Delhi should be treated as the seat.
Decision Breakdown
Relying on a recent Supreme Court ruling interpreting an almost identical twin-seat clause read together with an exclusive-jurisdiction clause, the Court held that once a jurisdiction clause confers exclusive authority on one city's courts, that clause controls over the mere listing of two possible seats in the arbitration clause. The Court found only the courts at Roorkie had jurisdiction and dismissed the petition solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, without touching the merits of the underlying dispute, leaving the petitioner free to approach the correct forum.
Lesson Learnt
When a contract lists two possible arbitration seats but also grants one city's courts "exclusive jurisdiction," that exclusive-jurisdiction clause will usually decide which court can actually hear arbitration-related petitions: party choice of "who files first" does not override it.