Supreme Court: governing law clause decides arbitration seat over venue

The case concerns a dispute between Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Parshva Innovation regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to appoint an arbitrator, specifically whether the 'juridical seat' of arbitration is Delhi or Goa based on conflicting clauses in their Franchise Agreement.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: Parshva Innovation; Bench: Justice Manoj Misra.

What the court decided

• The Court granted leave to appeal against the Delhi High Court's order dated 11th November 2025.
• The Court analyzed the distinction between the 'seat' and 'venue' of arbitration by reviewing precedents such as Indus Mobile, Swastik Gases, Brahmani River Pellets, and Activitas Management.
• The Court noted that the Delhi High Court had appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving the selection of the hearing venue to the arbitrator.

Also in the document

• The judgment text provided is truncated and does not contain the final operative order, final decision, or any specific deadlines.
• The Court observed that in previous cases (e.g., Activitas Management), a governing law clause vesting exclusive jurisdiction in a specific court was used to determine the seat, overriding other venue mentions.