DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS SECTION 11 PETITION; ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS NOT VOID UNDER SECTION 29 OF CONTRACT ACT FOR STIPULATING MULTIPLE CHOICE OF SEATS

T he Delhi High Court in the case Vedanta Limited vs Shreeji Shipping observed and has held that if an arbitration agreement stipulates multiple seats of arbitration, thereby, offering a choice to the parties is not void under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares agreements uncertain in meaning or incapable of being made certain as void.

The bench headed by Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing the present matter.

Facts of the Case: The present matter relates to a Purchase Order between Vedanta Limited i.e., the Petitioner and the respondent i.e., Shreeji Shipping for the transportation of coal from Kandla Port to Bhachau Plant and Bedi Port to Khambalia Plant, along with the execution of Standard Terms and Conditions port Agreement to the Purchase Order.

Therefore, the Petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause due to shortfalls in transported amounts and disputes arising from the Contract and the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrator in the Delhi High Court.

It has also been contended by the respondent that the existence of an arbitration agreement, claiming the Purchase Order was never accepted by the Respondent. Thus, it emphasized that it commenced handling and delivery of coal upon the arrival of the first vessel within the time frame specified in the Purchase Order but without signing it.

It was also argued before the court that the arbitration clause included in the for Transappended

Purchase Order's Standard Terms and Conditions was not agreed to by the Respondent.