Two Arbitration Places Can Both Be Seats If Parties Do Not Choose One: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 July held that where an arbitration agreement specifies two alternative places as the “place of arbitration” and the parties do not subsequently choose one, both places can operate as juridical seats of arbitration.

Justice Vivek Jain accordingly referred the dispute between Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited and newspaper publisher CMYK Printech Limited to arbitration and appointed former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator. He observed:

“In the present case, so far as the dual places of arbitration are concerned, the MOU does indicate that courts at Bhopal or New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction and the place shall be Delhi or Bhopal, or as decided by the parties. No different decision has been taken by the parties and therefore, the position remains that now the seat of arbitration is Delhi or Bhopal and the High Courts exercising jurisdiction over Delhi as well as over Madhya Pradesh would therefore have jurisdiction to entertain this application under Section 11(6).”

The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10 March 2004, under which Idieal Multi Media Network acted as a franchisee for publishing and circulating the Pioneer newspaper in Bhopal. CMYK Printech, the parent company publishing the newspaper, prepared print-ready pages in Delhi and sent them to Bhopal, where local news collected in the city was incorporated into the edition before circulation.

Clause 8 of the MOU provided that disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of courts at Bhopal or New Delhi, while Clause 9 provided for arbitration and stated that the “place of arbitration shall be at Delhi or Bhopal or as decided by the parties.”

After disputes arose, both companies invoked arbitration. Idieal Multi Media Network nominated Bhavana Sadho, a retired District Judge, while CMYK Printech nominated Justice Ram Gopal Mishra, former Acting Chief Justice of a High Court.

However, the two arbitrators could not agree on the third and presiding arbitrator. Idieal Multi Media Network consequently approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator in cases where the agreed appointment procedure fails.

Idieal Multi Media Network argued that the contractual clauses conferred jurisdiction on courts at Bhopal and New Delhi. CMYK Printech contended that Clause 9 of the MOU did not fix any juridical seat of arbitration and that jurisdiction should instead be determined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It pointed out that the MOU was executed in Delhi, its registered office was situated there and the print-ready pages were also prepared in Delhi.

Rejecting the objection, the Court noted that Clause 9 specifically referred to the “place of arbitration”, rather than merely the place where the arbitral tribunal would sit or hold meetings. It held that such a designated place operates as the juridical seat under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which deals with the place of arbitration.

Since the parties had named Delhi or Bhopal and had not subsequently selected one to the exclusion of the other, the Court held that both remained valid seats of arbitration and that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.

As the existence of the arbitration agreement and arbitrability of the dispute were not contested, the Bench appointed Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator and directed the parties to appear before him on 1 September 2026.

Accordingly, the High Court referred the case to arbitration.

Appearances for petitioner (Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited): Advocate Arjun Bajpai.

Appearances for respondent (CMYK Printech Limited): Advocates Omar Ahmad and Harsh Khbar.