Arbitration
An exclusive jurisdiction clause can fix the seat of arbitration
What the Court held
In Activitas Management Advisor Pvt Ltd v. Mind Plus Healthcare Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795), a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar held that where an agreement contains an arbitration clause and also confers exclusive jurisdiction on a particular court, that court's location is the seat of arbitration, even if the agreement does not use the words 'seat' or 'venue'. An application to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 then lies only before the High Court of that seat.
Why it matters
The Court set aside an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court appointing an arbitrator, holding that the Bombay High Court alone had jurisdiction as the seat. For parties drafting contracts, the decision is a reminder that an exclusive-jurisdiction clause carries real weight in arbitration: it can decide which court supervises the arbitration, so the choice should be made deliberately.
This note is general information on the law as at the date shown, not legal advice on any specific matter. The law changes; for advice on your facts, please speak to the firm.
Tell us about your matter.
Share the facts and we will tell you, candidly, where you stand and how we can help.