Supreme Court Reiterated That The Venue Of Arbitration Does Not Confer Jurisdiction On The Courts Rather The Seat Of The Arbitration Does.

The Supreme Court, through its judgement dated 15.04.2026 in the matter of J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v Rash Bilders Indian Private Limited¹ reiterated that the venue of arbitration does not confer jurisdiction on the courts rather the seat of the arbitration does.

In the present matter, the seat of arbitration was designated as Srinagar, and the arbitration proceedings were held in New Delhi. A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) was filed, challenging the arbitral award before the High Court of Srinagar, which was returned by the High Court stating that, since the arbitration proceedings were conducted and the award was rendered at New Delhi, the courts at New Delhi alone had jurisdiction.

The court held that once the seat of arbitration is fixed, it remains immutable unless altered by an express agreement. The court further held that venue is merely a geographical location chosen for convenience for holding hearings, examination of witnesses, or meetings of the arbitral tribunal. It does not confer jurisdiction and does not, by itself, alter or determine the seat.

Footnote

^{1 2026 INSC 368}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.