A venue named in an arbitration clause is not automatically the seat, holds the Supreme Court
12 October 2026
The Supreme Court held that the venue specified for arbitral proceedings does not automatically become the seat of arbitration, and that the juridical seat must be found by reading the agreement in its entirety to decipher the true intention of the parties.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi decided the appeal in Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation, neutral citation 2026 INSC 1109, arising from SLP Civil No. 35915 of 2025.
The Franchise Agreement of 3 August 2023 said in one clause that the precise location of the arbitration would be within Delhi, while another clause said the proceedings would be held in Goa, and a separate clause gave exclusive jurisdiction to competent courts in Goa.
The Court held that the juridical seat was Goa and that the Delhi High Court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It set aside the Delhi High Court's order of 11 November 2025 appointing a sole arbitrator.
The Bench applied the tests laid down in BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited, which were affirmed in Arif Azim Company Limited.
In plain words
Seat of arbitration — The legal home of an arbitration, which fixes which country's or State's courts supervise it.
Venue — The place where arbitral hearings are physically held, which may differ from the seat.
Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — The provision under which a High Court appoints an arbitrator when the parties fail to do so.
Exclusive jurisdiction clause — A contract term that sends all disputes to the courts of one named place only.