In a recent matter, the Delhi High Court has laid down an important point as to the jurisdiction in arbitration. In the case of GR Builders v. Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that the place which is chosen as the seat of arbitration can determine which court will hear applications relating to the arbitration.

The dispute arose from a contract pertaining to civil and structural work. It was stated in the agreement that the place of arbitration has been chosen to be Faridabad. When certain disagreements arose, GR Builders approached the Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator.

The respondent raised certain objections while arguing that the agreed place of arbitration was Faridabad and that the jurisdiction was with Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

Following which the Delhi High Court held that the agreement clearly mentioned the place of arbitration to be Faridabad and that it would be treated as the seat of arbitration. The Court also clarified that only because the cause of action arose in Delhi, the Delhi High Court would not get jurisdiction under Section 11. 

The petition was dismissed and liberty was granted to approach the appropriate court. The judgement highlights that when an arbitration clause is drafted, it should clearly state the seat of arbitration. Merely using a few additional words in the contract can determine which court has jurisdiction over the arbitration.