‘Seat’ Vs ‘Venue’: An Analysis Of The Ongoing Debate In Arbitration In India

Mansi Beniwal, LL.M (ADR), Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), Sonipat

ABSTRACT

The debate between venue and seat is an issue that concerns the location of arbitration procedures and the authority of supervisory courts, as provided. Conversely, whether such courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over other relevant courts or whether the court in which the cause of action originated is still concurrently competent are some of the major issues that have arisen regarding Arbitral Proceedings due to the non-applicability of the Civil Procedure Code1, and the courts have time and again tried to elucidate the ambiguous distinguishment between ‘seat’ and ‘venue.’

The current controversy that has garnered significant significance in the field of arbitration law is the seat-venue dilemma, which refers to the difficulty encountered by courts in ascertaining the location of the arbitration proceedings. While the Supreme Court has issued notable verdict about the meanings of these terms (seat, venue, site of arbitration), there is some ambiguity. This paper will analyse the most recent legal stance established by the Supreme Court on the resoluteness of the location of arbitration in commensurate to their need to uphold the fundamental autonomy of parties’ principle.