DELHI HIGH COURT; GENERIC EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE IN AGREEMENT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE COURT'S JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATION SEAT

The Delhi High Court in the case Nitin Kwatra vs Stadhawk Services Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. observed and has held that even if the agreement specifies exclusive jurisdiction on a different court, courts having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration retain supervisory authority over the arbitral process.

The bench headed by single judge Justice Sachin Datta in the case observed and has held that the presence of a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause does not diminish Delhi courts’ jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration.

Facts of the Case: The present matter pertains to the Business Associate Agreement which is executed between Nitin

Kwatra, i.e, the Petitioenr and Stadhawk Services Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the Respondent No.1, with Respondent nos. 2 and 3 identified as the directors of Respondent no.1. Primarily, the disagreements revolve around monetary entitlements outlined in the aforementioned agreement.

Therefore, in response to these disputes, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via a notice to the Respondents. Thus, the respondent did not provide any response to this notice. The Petitioner filed an application in Delhi High Court, High Court as stated under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Act for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.