Section 29A of the Arbitration Act – Jurisdiction of the High Court

 

On 6.11.2017, the Arbitrator was appointed and the proceedings are underway even today.  The arbitration agreement provided for the seat of arbitration at Karjat / Thane.  The parties agreed before the Arbitral Tribunal for the seat at Mumbai.

 

In the eight years during which the arbitration has been underway, at least three applications under Section 29A of the Act have, however, been filed by the petitioners before the District Court, Raigad at Alibag.  The parties appear to have been ad idem on the territorial jurisdiction for such petitions before the District Court.  Twice the District Court passed orders under Section 29A of the Act.

 

It is only when objection to the territorial jurisdiction for section 9 petition was taken by the Respondents that the petitioners have appeared to have changed their mind to withdraw the third application under Section 29A contemporaneously with the filing of Section 29A petition in this Court.   This is a post-litem change that is eroded by the earlier post-litem conduct.

 

HELD that going by the overall circumstantial evidence available on record and the conduct of the parties, the parties were ad idem in not displacing the agreed seat.   The minutes of the arbitral meeting, therefore, have to be reasonably read as a matter of operational convenience of the parties, as shifting the venue to Mumbai.   The seat always remained Karjat / Thane.   Even if it were changed to Mumbai, the parties by their conduct, changed it again to be originally agreed position.

  Judgment dated  29.7.2025   of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.18764 of 2025 of Ramesh Ramchandra Kalyankar and others   Vs.  Suresh K. Haware and others