Seat Of Arbitration Can Be Inferred From Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 8 April 2026 held that where an agreement provides for arbitration and also contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause, such clause indicates the seat of arbitration even if the agreement does not expressly specify the seat or venue.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad heard a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Pidge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in its dispute with Sliksync Technologies Pvt. Ltd. arising out of a Merchant Services Agreement dated 18 September 2024. He held:

“...this Court holds that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition and appoint an arbitrator. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties.”

Pidge Technologies, which provides logistics platform services, alleged that Sliksync Technologies failed to furnish accurate rider data and operational inputs. This failure disrupted operations, delayed rider payments, and led to a strike.

Pidge Technologies claimed that more than Rs. 2.09 crores remained outstanding for services rendered between September and November 2025. Despite issuing legal notices and invoking arbitration, the disputes remained unresolved. Subsequently, Sliksync Technologies raised counter-claims of Rs. 4.5 crores.

The Court examined whether it could appoint an arbitrator when the arbitration clause did not specify a seat or venue but granted exclusive jurisdiction to courts at Delhi. It relied on and reiterated the Supreme Court's decision in Activitas Management Advisor Pvt. Ltd. v. Mind Plus Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., which held:

“Though clause does not use the expression 'seat' or 'venue', the 'jurisdiction' is mentioned in the context of resolution of disputes through arbitration… therefore the seat of arbitration must be taken to be [the place specified in the jurisdiction clause.”

Holding that it had jurisdiction, the Bench appointed Advocate Varuna Bhandari Gugnani as the sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. It clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability, remain open for determination by the arbitrator.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the case.

Appearance for the Petitioner: Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Aditya Shah, Advocate (s)

Appearance for the Respondent: Mr. Samudra Sarangi, Ms. Shruti Raina, Ms. Saloni Jain, Ms. Yoshita Sood, Mr. Abhishek Purohit Advocates