Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation (SC): Juridical seat of arbitration must be determined holistically, establishing court jurisdiction despite multiple venue references.

39. Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation

2026 INSC 1109

October 12, 2026

Arbitration – Seat and venue of arbitration – Interpretation of arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause – Where the agreement specifies more than one place for arbitral proceedings, the juridical seat must be determined by construing the agreement as a whole – Exclusive jurisdiction clause relevant to identifying the seat. [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 11(6)]

FACTS

The parties entered into a Franchise Agreement dated August 3, 2023, containing an arbitration clause. Clause 32.4 provided that the location of arbitration would be within Delhi, while Clause 32.5 stated that the arbitration proceedings would be held in Goa. Clause 38 of the agreement provided that the parties would submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts in Goa.

Following a dispute under the agreement, the respondent proposed the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The proposal was rejected by the appellant, following which the respondent applied to the Delhi High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Delhi High Court