Arbitration Clause and Jurisdiction Clause : Interpreting the Venue of Arbitration in Case of Conflict

Arbitration Clause and Jurisdiction Clause : Interpreting the Venue of Arbitration in Case of Conflict

In M/s Cable Corporation of India Ltd. v. M/s Jay Pee Sports International Ltd., [2018] GCtR 6375 (Delhi) where the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Clause stipulated the Venue of Arbitration as New Delhi but the Governing Laws and Jurisdiction clause stipulating that the district Courts of Gautam Budh Nagar and High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of or related to this Contract, it was noted that the Arbitration Clause was distinct from the Jurisdiction Clause and noted that the arbitration clause in that case was Clause 31 with the heading “Disputes Resolution and Arbitration”. 

Clause 31.2 clearly stipulated that the venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi. Clause 38 had a heading “Governing Laws and Jurisdiction”. It was not dealing with arbitration. Clause 31 was a provision dealing only in arbitration and would apply in relation to arbitration proceedings. As the arbitration proceedings are to be held in Delhi, the courts in Delhi would exercise jurisdiction over the arbitration process and the seat of arbitration would be Delhi. Clause 38 being a general provision would be applicable to proceedings that may take placeother than the arbitration proceedings. This would be the appropriate harmonious interpretation of the two clauses of the agreement between the parties.