Case: BBR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitration proceedings in connection with the arbitration proceedings with one court exclusively. The aforesaid observation supports our reasoning that once the jurisdictional seat of arbitration is fixed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, then, without the express mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration, the seat cannot be changed. Therefore, the appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional seat already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator. The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held. 30. We would now reproduce paragraph 59 of the judgment in BGS SGS Soma (supra), which examines Section 42 of the Act and reads as under: 59. Equally incorrect is the finding in Antrix Corpn. Ltd. that Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be rendered ineffective and useless. Section 42 is meant to avoid conflicts in jurisdiction of courts by placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitral proceedings in connection with the arbitration in one court exclusively. This is why the section begins with a non obstante clause, and then goes on to state … where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this part has been made in a court… It is obvious that the application made under this part to a court must be a court which has jurisdiction to decide such application. The subsequent holdings of this court, that where a seat is designated in an agreement, the courts of the seat alone have jurisdiction, would require that all applications under Part I be made only in the court where the seat is located, and that court alone then has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitral agreement. So read, Section 42 is not rendered ineffective or useless. Also, where it is found on the facts of a particular case that either no seat is designated by agreement, or the so-called seat is only a convenient venue, then there may be several courts where a part of the cause of action arises that may have jurisdiction. Again, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be preferred before a court in which part of the cause of action arises in a case where parties have not agreed on the seat of arbitration, and before such seat may have been determined, on the facts of a particular case, by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 20(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In both these situations, the earliest application having been made to a court in which a part of the cause of action arises would then be the exclusive court under Section 42, which would have control over the arbitral proceedings. For all these reasons, the law stated by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts in this regard is incorrect and is overruled. 31. We have already referred to the first few sentences of the aforementioned paragraph and explained the reasoning in the context of the present case. The paragraph BGS SGS Soma (supra) also explains the non-obstante effect as incorporated in Section 42 to hold that it is evident that the application made under Part-I must be to a court which has a jurisdiction to decide such application. Where the seat is designated in the agreement, the courts of the seat alone will have the jurisdiction. Thus, all applications under Part-I will be made in the court where the seat is located as that court would alone have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the arbitration proceedings. The quotation also clarifies that when either no seat is designated by an agreement, or the so- called seat is only a convenient venue, then there may be several courts where a part of the cause of action arises that may have jurisdiction. An application under Section 9 of the Act may be preferred before the court in which a part of cause of action arises in the case where parties had not agreed on the seat of arbitration. This is possible in the absence of an agreement fixing the seat, as an application under Section 9 may be filed before the seat is determined by the arbitral tribunal under Section 20(2) of the Act. Consequently, in such situations, the court where the earliest application has been made, being the court in which a part or entire of the cause of action arises, would then be the exclusive court under Section 42 of the Act. Accordingly, such a court would have control over the arbitration proceedings (We are not examining and are not required to decide the question- whether there is a difference between the expression court and the Chief Justice or his nominee in the present case). 32. Section 42 is to no avail as it does not help the case propounded by the appellant, as in the present case the arbitrator had fixed the jurisdictional seat under Section 20(2) of the Act before any party had moved the court under the Act, being a court where a part or whole of the cause of action had arisen. The appellant had moved the Delhi High Court under Section 34 of the Act after the arbitral tribunal vide the order dated 5th August 2014 had fixed the jurisdictional seat at Panchkula in Haryana. Consequently, the appellant cannot, based on fastest finger first principle, claim that the courts in Delhi get exclusive jurisdiction in view of Section 42 of the Act. The reason is simple that before the application under Section 34 was filed, the jurisdictional seat of arbitration had been determined and fixed under sub-section (2) to Section 20 and thereby, the courts having jurisdiction over Panchkula in Haryana, have exclusive jurisdiction. The courts in Delhi would not get jurisdiction as the jurisdictional seat of arbitration is Panchkula and not Delhi.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. Interpretation of the term court, as defined in sub-clause (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, had come up for consideration before a Constitutional Bench of five Judges in the case of Bhartiya Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc (2012) 9 SCC 552 ; BALCO case, for short, which decision had examined the distinction between jurisdictional seat and venue in the context of international arbitration, to hold that the expression seat of arbitration is the centre of gravity in arbitration. However, this does not mean that all arbitration proceedings must take place at the seat. The arbitrators at times hold meetings at more convenient locations. Regarding the expression court, it was observed that Section 2(2) of the Act does not make Part-I applicable to arbitrations seated outside India. The expressions used in Section 2(2) (See paragraph 20 below ........ provisions of Part II of this Act.) of the Act do not permit an interpretation to hold that Part-I would also apply to arbitrations held outside the territory of India. Noticing the above interpretation, a three Judges Bench of this Court in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Limited (2020) 4 SCC 224 has observed that the expression subject to arbitration used in clause (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act cannot be confused with the subject matter of the suit. The term subject matter of the suit in the said provision is confined to Part-I. The purpose of the clause is to identify the courts having supervisory control over the judicial proceedings. Hence, the clause refers to a court which would be essentially a court of the seat of the arbitration process. Accordingly, clause (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 2 has to be construed keeping in view the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, which are, in fact, determinative and relevant when we decide the question of the seat of an arbitration. This interpretation recognises the principle of party autonomy, which is the edifice of arbitration. In other words, the term court as defined in clause (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 2, which refers to the subject matter of arbitration, is not necessarily used as finally determinative of the courts territorial jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under the Act. In BGS SGS Soma (supra), this Court observed that any other construction of the provisions would render Section 20 of the Act nugatory. In view of the Court, the legislature had given jurisdiction to two courts: the court which should have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located; and the court where the arbitration takes place. This is necessary as, on some occasions, the agreement may provide the seat of arbitration that would be neutral to both the parties. The courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process. The seat of arbitration need not be the place where any cause of action has arisen, in the sense that the seat of arbitration may be different from the place where obligations are/had to be performed under the contract. In such circumstances, both the courts should have jurisdiction, viz., the courts within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the suit is situated and the courts within whose jurisdiction the dispute resolution forum, that is, where the arbitral tribunal is located.17. Relying upon the Constitutional Bench decision in BALCO (supra), in BGS SGS Soma (supra), it has been held that sub- section (3) of Section 20 refers to venue whereas the place mentioned in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) refers to the jurisdictional seat. To explain the difference, in BALCO (supra), a case relating to international arbitration, reference was made to several judgments, albeit the judgment in Shashoua v. Sharma (2009) EWHC 957 (Comm.) was extensively quoted to observe that an agreement as to the seat of arbitration draws in the law of that country as the curial law and is analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (Court of appeal decision in C v. D, 2007 EWCA Civ 1282 (CA)). The parties that have agreed to the seat must challenge an interim or final award only in the courts of the place designated as the seat of arbitration. In other words, the choice of the seat of arbitration must be the choice of a forum/court for remedies seeking to attack the award.18. The aforesaid principles relating to international arbitration have been applied to domestic arbitrations. In this regard, we may refer to paragraph 38 of BGS SGS Soma (supra), which reads as under:38. A reading of paras 75, 76, 96, 110, 116, 123 and 194 of BALCO would show that where parties have selected the seat of arbitration in their agreement, such selection would then amount to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, as the parties have now indicated that the courts at the seat would alone have jurisdiction to entertain challenges against the arbitral award which have been made at the seat. The example given in para 96 buttresses this proposition, and is supported by the previous and subsequent paragraphs pointed out hereinabove. The BALCO judgment, when read as a whole, applies the concept of seat as laid down by the English judgments (and which is in Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1996), by harmoniously construing Section 20 with Section 2(1)(e), so as to broaden the definition of court, and bring within its ken courts of the seat of the arbitration.19. The Court in BGS SGS Soma (supra), then proceeded to examine the contention whether paragraph 96 of BALCO (supra), which speaks of concurrent jurisdiction of the courts, that is, the jurisdiction of courts where the cause of action has arisen wholly or partly, and the courts within the jurisdiction in which the dispute resolution forum – arbitration is located, to observe and elucidate the legal position:40. Para 96 of BALCO case is in several parts. First and foremost, Section 2(1)(e), which is the definition of court under the Arbitration Act, 1996 was referred to, and was construed keeping in view the provisions in Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which give recognition to party autonomy in choosing the seat of the arbitration proceedings. Secondly, the Court went on to state in two places in the said paragraph that jurisdiction is given to two sets of courts, namely, those courts which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located; and those courts where the arbitration takes place. However, when it came to providing a neutral place as the seat of arbitration proceedings, the example given by the five-Judge Bench made it clear that appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 against interim orders passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would lie only to the courts of the seat — which is Delhi in that example — which are the courts having supervisory control, or jurisdiction, over the arbitration proceedings. The example then goes on to state that this would be irrespective of the fact that the obligations to be performed under the contract, that is the cause of action, may arise in part either at Mumbai or Kolkata. The fact that the arbitration is to take place in Delhi is of importance. However, the next sentence in the said paragraph reiterates the concurrent jurisdiction of both courts.20. BGS SGS Soma (supra) extensively refers to the judgment of this Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited and Others (2017) 7 SCC 678,  which decision refers to the legislative history of Section 2(1)(e) and Section 20 of the Act and the recommendations of the 246th Law Commission Report, 2014. These recommendations, it is observed, were not implemented in consonance with the decision in BALCO (supra), which, in no uncertain terms, refers to the place as the jurisdictional seat for the purpose of clause (e) to sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act. This judgment was subsequently followed in Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited (2020) 5 SCC 462 . It may, however, be noted that clause (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 2 was amended by inserting sub-clause (ii) [(ii) in the case of international .......subordinate to that High Court;] with the specific objective to solve the problem of conflict of jurisdiction that would arise in cases where interim measures are sought in India in cases of arbitration seated outside India. In the context of domestic arbitrations it must be held that once the seat of arbitration has been fixed, then the courts at the said location alone will have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the supervisory powers over the arbitration. The courts at other locations would not have jurisdiction, including the courts where cause of action has arisen. As observed above and held in BGS SGS Soma (supra), and Indus Mobile (supra), (In Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd.,.........agreement between the parties) the moment the parties by agreement designate the seat, it becomes akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. It would then vest the courts at the seat with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate arbitration proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties.21. The Court in BGS SGS Soma (supra) has also dealt with the situation where the parties have not agreed on or have not fixed the jurisdictional seat of arbitration, and has laid down the following test to determine the seat of arbitration which would determine the location of the court that would exercise supervisory jurisdiction. The test is simple and reads:61. It will thus be seen that wherever there is an express designation of a venue, and no designation of any alternative place as the seat, combined with a supranational body of rules governing the arbitration, and no other significant contrary indicia, the inexorable conclusion is that the stated venue is actually the juridical seat of the arbitral proceeding.For formulating the test reference was made to several Indian and foreign judgments to emphasise that where the parties had failed to choose the jurisdictional seat (BGS SGS Soma (supra) case also examines and explains case law where the courts have held that so called seat mentioned in the agreement is convenient venue an aspect with which we are not concerned in the present case) which would be governing the arbitral proceedings, the proceedings must be considered at any rate prima facie as being governed and subject to jurisdiction of the court where the arbitration is being held, on the ground that the said court is most likely to be connected with the proceedings (See the principle culled out by Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11th Edition). Accordingly, in BGS SGS Soma (supra), the law as applicable, where the parties by agreement have not fixed the jurisdictional seat, is crystallised as under:82. On a conspectus of the aforesaid judgments, it may be concluded that whenever there is the designation of a place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the venue of the arbitration proceedings, the expression arbitration proceedings would make it clear that the venue is really the seat of the arbitral proceedings, as the aforesaid expression does not include just one or more individual or particular hearing, but the arbitration proceedings as a whole, including the making of an award at that place. This language has to be contrasted with language such as tribunals are to meet or have witnesses, experts or the parties where only hearings are to take place in the venue, which may lead to the conclusion, other things being equal, that the venue so stated is not the seat of arbitral proceedings, but only a convenient place of meeting. Further, the fact that the arbitral proceedings shall be held at a particular venue would also indicate that the parties intended to anchor arbitral proceedings to a particular place, signifying thereby, that that place is the seat of the arbitral proceedings. This, coupled with there being no other significant contrary indicia that the stated venue is merely a venue and not the seat of the arbitral proceedings, would then conclusively show that such a clause designates a seat of the arbitral proceedings. In an international context, if a supranational body of rules is to govern the arbitration, this would further be an indicia that the venue, so stated, would be the seat of the arbitral proceedings. In a national context, this would be replaced by the Arbitration Act, 1996 as applying to the stated venue, which then becomes the seat for the purposes of arbitration.22. BGS SGS Soma (supra) also refers to decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. [(2019) 13 SCC 472  – In this case the parties had not chosen the seat of arbitration and the arbitral tribunal had also not determined the seat of arbitration. Therefore it was held that the choice of Kuala Lumpur as the venue of arbitration did not imply that Kuala Lumpur had become the seat of arbitration], which had held that the choice of the venue of arbitration did not imply that it had become the seat of arbitration and that the venue could not by itself assume the status of the seat; instead a venue could become the seat only if something else is added to it as a concomitant. According to BGS SGS Soma (supra), the reasoning given in Hardy Exploration (supra) is per incuriam as it contradicts the ratio and law laid down in BALCO (supra). Hence, BGS SGS Soma (supra) holds that it would be correct to hold that while exercising jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, an arbitrator is not to pass a detailed or a considered decision. The place where the arbitral tribunal holds the arbitration proceedings would, by default, be the venue of arbitration and consequently the seat of arbitration.23. When we turn to the facts of the present case, if the arbitration proceedings were held throughout in Panchkula, there would have been no difficulty in holding that Delhi is not the jurisdictional seat. But that was not to be, as on recusal of Mr. Justice (Retd.) N.C. Jain and post the appointment of Mr. Justice (Retd.) T.S.Doabia arbitration proceedings were held at Delhi. In the context of the present case and noticing the first order passed by the arbitral tribunal on 5th August 2014 stipulating that the place of the proceedings would be Panchkula in Haryana and in the absence of other significant indica on application of Section 20(2) of the Act, the city of Panchkula in Haryana would be the jurisdictional seat of arbitration. As the seat was fixed vide the order dated 5th August, 2014, the courts in Delhi would not have jurisdiction.This, in the context of the decision in Inox Renewables Ltd (supra), is undoubtedly correct, but the aforesaid decision cannot be read as a precept in cases governed by sub- section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Inox Renewables (supra) was a case governed under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, that is, where parties by the agreement had fixed the jurisdictional seat at Jaipur, Rajasthan, but thereafter, by mutual consent, had decided to change the venue of proceedings to Ahmedabad prior to the commencement of the arbitration. This evidently resulted in the decision of this Court accepting that the jurisdictional seat of arbitration was Ahmedabad. This decision would apply in case the parties, by consent, agree mutually that the seat of arbitration would be located at a particular place. The said exercise would be in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, which endorses and emphasises on party autonomy and choice that determines the seat of arbitration. It would not apply when the arbitrator fixes the seat in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Once the arbitrator fixes the seat in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the arbitrator cannot change the seat of the arbitration, except when and if the parties mutually agree and state that the seat of arbitration should be changed to another location, which is not so in the present case.25. There are good reasons why we feel that subsequent hearings or proceedings at a different location other than the place fixed by the arbitrator as the seat of arbitration should not be regarded and treated as a change or relocation of jurisdictional seat. This would, in our opinion, lead to uncertainty and confusion resulting in avoidable esoteric and hermetic litigation as to the jurisdictional seat of arbitration. The seat once fixed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 20(2), should remain static and fixed, whereas the venue of arbitration can change and move from the seat to a new location. Venue is not constant and stationary and can move and change in terms of sub-section (3) to Section 20 of the Act. Change of venue does not result in change or relocation of the seat of arbitration.26. It is highly desirable in commercial matters, in fact in all cases, that there should be certainty as to the court that should exercise jurisdiction. We do not think the law of arbitration visualises repeated or constant shifting of the seat of arbitration. In fact, sub-section (3) of Section 20 specifically states and draws a distinction between the venue of arbitration and the seat of arbitration by stating that for convenience and other reasons, the arbitration proceedings may be held at a place different than the seat of arbitration, which location is referred to the venue of arbitration. If we accept this contention of the appellant, we would, as observed in the case of C v. D (supra), create a recipe for litigation and (what is worse) confusion which was not intended by the Act. The place of jurisdiction or the seat must be certain and static and not vague or changeable, as the parties should not be in doubt as to the jurisdiction of the courts for availing of judicial remedies. Further, there would be a risk of parties rushing to the courts to get first hearing or conflicting decisions that the law does not contemplate and is to be avoided.27. A secondary contention to support the said plea on the ground that the courts where arbitration proceedings are being conducted should be given supervisory powers, on in-depth consideration, must be rejected as feeble when we juxtapose the unacceptable practicable consequences that emerge. Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the courts where the arbitration proceedings are being conducted is a relevant consideration, but not a conclusive and determinative factor when the venue is not the seat. The seat determines the jurisdiction of the courts. There would be situations where the venue of arbitration in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 20 would be different from the place of the jurisdictional seat, and it is equally possible majority or most of the hearing may have taken place at a venue which is different from the seat of arbitration. Further, on balance, we find that the aspect of certainty as to the courts jurisdiction must be given and accorded priority over the contention that the supervisory courts located at the place akin to the venue where the arbitration proceedings were conducted or substantially conducted should be preferred.On deeper consideration, this argument should be rejected for the reasons recorded above, as it will lead to confusion and uncertainty. The legal question raised in the present case must be answered objectively and not subjectively with reference to the facts of a particular case. Otherwise, there would be a lack of clarity and consequent mix-up about the courts that would exercise jurisdiction. There could be cases where the arbitration proceedings are held at different locations, but the seat of arbitration, as agreed by the parties or as determined by the arbitrator, may be different, and at that place – the seat, only a few hearings or initial proceedings may have been held. This would not matter and would not result in shifting of the jurisdictional seat. Arbitrators can fix the place of residence, place of work, or in case of recusal, arbitration proceedings may be held at two different places, as in the present case. For clarity and certainty, which is required when the question of territorial jurisdiction arises, we would hold that the place or the venue fixed for arbitration proceedings, when sub-section (2) of Section 20 applies, will be the jurisdictional seat and the courts having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional seat would have exclusive jurisdiction. This principle would have exception that would apply when by mutual consent the parties agree that the jurisdictional seat should be changed, and such consent must be express and clearly understood and agreed by the parties.29. We have quoted Section 42 of the Act. Section 42 was also examined in BGS SGS Soma (supra) and the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in Antrix Corpn. Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. (2018) SCC OnLine Del 9338 was overruled observing that the Section 42 is meant to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction of courts by placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitration proceedings in connection with the arbitration proceedings with one court exclusively. The aforesaid observation supports our reasoning that once the jurisdictional seat of arbitration is fixed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, then, without the express mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration, the seat cannot be changed. Therefore, the appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional seat already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator. The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held.30. We would now reproduce paragraph 59 of the judgment in BGS SGS Soma (supra), which examines Section 42 of the Act and reads as under:59. Equally incorrect is the finding in Antrix Corpn. Ltd. that Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be rendered ineffective and useless. Section 42 is meant to avoid conflicts in jurisdiction of courts by placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitral proceedings in connection with the arbitration in one court exclusively. This is why the section begins with a non obstante clause, and then goes on to state … where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this part has been made in a court… It is obvious that the application made under this part to a court must be a court which has jurisdiction to decide such application. The subsequent holdings of this court, that where a seat is designated in an agreement, the courts of the seat alone have jurisdiction, would require that all applications under Part I be made only in the court where the seat is located, and that court alone then has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitral agreement. So read, Section 42 is not rendered ineffective or useless. Also, where it is found on the facts of a particular case that either no seat is designated by agreement, or the so-called seat is only a convenient venue, then there may be several courts where a part of the cause of action arises that may have jurisdiction. Again, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be preferred before a court in which part of the cause of action arises in a case where parties have not agreed on the seat of arbitration, and before such seat may have been determined, on the facts of a particular case, by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 20(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In both these situations, the earliest application having been made to a court in which a part of the cause of action arises would then be the exclusive court under Section 42, which would have control over the arbitral proceedings. For all these reasons, the law stated by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts in this regard is incorrect and is overruled.31. We have already referred to the first few sentences of the aforementioned paragraph and explained the reasoning in the context of the present case. The paragraph BGS SGS Soma (supra) also explains the non-obstante effect as incorporated in Section 42 to hold that it is evident that the application made under Part-I must be to a court which has a jurisdiction to decide such application. Where the seat is designated in the agreement, the courts of the seat alone will have the jurisdiction. Thus, all applications under Part-I will be made in the court where the seat is located as that court would alone have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the arbitration proceedings. The quotation also clarifies that when either no seat is designated by an agreement, or the so- called seat is only a convenient venue, then there may be several courts where a part of the cause of action arises that may have jurisdiction. An application under Section 9 of the Act may be preferred before the court in which a part of cause of action arises in the case where parties had not agreed on the seat of arbitration. This is possible in the absence of an agreement fixing the seat, as an application under Section 9 may be filed before the seat is determined by the arbitral tribunal under Section 20(2) of the Act. Consequently, in such situations, the court where the earliest application has been made, being the court in which a part or entire of the cause of action arises, would then be the exclusive court under Section 42 of the Act. Accordingly, such a court would have control over the arbitration proceedings (We are not examining and are not required to decide the question- whether there is a difference between the expression court and the Chief Justice or his nominee in the present case).32. Section 42 is to no avail as it does not help the case propounded by the appellant, as in the present case the arbitrator had fixed the jurisdictional seat under Section 20(2) of the Act before any party had moved the court under the Act, being a court where a part or whole of the cause of action had arisen. The appellant had moved the Delhi High Court under Section 34 of the Act after the arbitral tribunal vide the order dated 5th August 2014 had fixed the jurisdictional seat at Panchkula in Haryana. Consequently, the appellant cannot, based on fastest finger first principle, claim that the courts in Delhi get exclusive jurisdiction in view of Section 42 of the Act. The reason is simple that before the application under Section 34 was filed, the jurisdictional seat of arbitration had been determined and fixed under sub-section (2) to Section 20 and thereby, the courts having jurisdiction over Panchkula in Haryana, have exclusive jurisdiction. The courts in Delhi would not get jurisdiction as the jurisdictional seat of arbitration is Panchkula and not Delhi.