The seat of an arbitration decides which court supervises it — and when a drafting committee scatters two cities across one dispute-resolution clause, that question becomes litigation of its own. In Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation (civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 35915 of 2025, decided on 12 October 2026, 2026 INSC 1109), a Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Delhi High Court's appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the juridical seat of the franchise-agreement arbitration was Goa: Delhi, though named, was just a venue.
Why the seat question reached Article 136
Section 11(6) petitions go to "the High Court" — but which one? Since the seat doctrine crystallised, the answer has been the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the juridical seat. The appellant resisted the Delhi appointment on precisely that ground, and when the High Court proceeded nonetheless, the special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 became the only corrective. The Supreme Court granted leave and decided the appeal on the clause\'s construction — a reminder that seat objections are jurisdictional and survive all the way up.
The analytical sequence
The drafting lesson that will not retire
Every year of Indian arbitration reports contains a seat-venue casualty, and the pattern is always the same: a clause that names one city for "arbitration", another for "proceedings", and a third provision handing jurisdiction to courts somewhere else. The fix costs one sentence: "The seat of arbitration shall be [city]; hearings may be held at any convenient venue." Paired with a jurisdiction clause pointing to the same city\'s courts, that sentence eliminates the entire genre of litigation this judgment represents. Transactional lawyers reviewing franchise, distribution and construction agreements should treat a two-city dispute clause as a defect to be cured at signature, not a nuance to be argued later.
Where this fits in SLP practice
For Supreme Court practice, the decision illustrates a category in which special leave is realistically granted: a pure question of jurisdiction, fully documentary, where the High Court\'s order would otherwise channel an entire arbitration into the supervision of the wrong forum. No disputed facts, no concurrent findings — the classic profile of an SLP that converts into a civil appeal and succeeds. Litigants weighing a challenge to a Section 11 appointment should note, equally, what the Court did not do: it expressed no view on the arbitrability or merits of the underlying franchise dispute, confining itself to the seat.
Neutral citation 2026 INSC 1109; the judgment is reportable. The appointment question now lies before the High Court with supervisory jurisdiction over Goa, and the arbitration agreement itself stands unaffected.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the contract actually say?
Clause 32.4 of the Franchise Agreement located the arbitration "within Delhi", while Clause 32.5 provided for proceedings to be held in Goa. Clause 38, the governing law provision, gave exclusive jurisdiction to the courts in Goa. The respondent invoked Section 11 before the Delhi High Court, which appointed an arbitrator in November 2025, leaving the venue open.
How did the Supreme Court resolve the two-place conflict?
By a harmonious reading anchored in the three-condition test from BGS SGS SOMA and Arif Azim: a named place is the seat only when the clause names one place, the proceedings are anchored there, and no contrary indicia exist. With two places named, the exclusive-jurisdiction clause pointing to Goa and the hearings placed in Goa, the Court concluded the juridical seat is Goa and Delhi is just a venue.
Does an exclusive jurisdiction clause need the word "exclusive"?
No. Following Swastik Gases, Brahmani River Pellets and Activitas Management, exclusivity can be implied from the language and structure of the clause. The Court distinguished the respondent's authorities as cases where only one place was named in the arbitration clause.
What happens to the arbitration now?
The Delhi High Court's appointment was set aside for want of jurisdiction, and the parties were left free to approach the High Court having supervisory jurisdiction over the seat — the Bombay High Court bench exercising jurisdiction over Goa — for appointment under Section 11(6).