Exclusive Bikaner Jurisdiction Clause Makes Delhi Only the Arbitration Venue: Rajasthan High Court Appoints Arbitrator

M/s Aseem and Company, the petitioner's firm, won Union of India road resurfacing tenders, one at a military station, and disputes arose over delays and defaults (paras 3, 3.1, 4). In the lead Section 11 case, the firm's notice of 27.11.2020 sought an arbitrator; the respondent replied that one had been appointed under clause 24, which the firm said did not apply (para 3.1). In Application No. 4/2021, under Sections 14 and 15, it sought to replace an arbitrator appointed on 25.05.2018 (paras 2, 12). Clause 35 fixed New Delhi as the place of arbitration hearing; clause 46 gave legal jurisdiction to Bikaner Court only (para 3.1). The Union said only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction (para 3.3.2).

The Court relied on BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., under which a stated venue is the seat unless there is significant ‘contrary indicia’, and on the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Homevista Decor that giving exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of another place is such an indicator, leaving the venue a convenient place (para 7). It also noted Ravi Ranjan Developers v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, where Kolkata was only the venue for sittings (para 8). Reading clauses 46 and 35 together, it found the seat named as Bikaner, with exclusive jurisdiction in Bikaner Court, and New Delhi (HQ of BRO) as the venue, so the matter came under its own jurisdiction and supervision (paras 9, 9.1). The contrary indicia was clearly reflected, and once the seat was fixed this Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the Section 11 applications (para 10). On substitution, the arbitrator had been appointed on 25.05.2018 and the matter was still pending, so a fresh independent arbitrator was necessary (para 12); the Court referred to Perkins Eastman Architects v. HSCC (para 12.1). The limited issue fell within Section 11, and any further issue could be raised before the new arbitrator (paras 13, 14).