Patna High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Venue Clause Specifying New Delhi

The Patna High Court dismissed the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.

The petitioner terminated a dealership agreement over delayed vehicle deliveries and sought arbitration. The agreement's Clause 36.3 mentioned New Delhi as the "venue" for arbitration.

The petitioner argued that "seat" and "venue" differ, implying jurisdiction could lie elsewhere, citing Ravi Ranjan Developers Case (2022), while the respondent cited Brahmani River Pellets (2020) to claim exclusive jurisdiction in Delhi.

The court held that, without a separate "seat" clause, the designation of New Delhi as the "venue" conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court and dismissed the petition.