Visakhapatnam Courts Have Jurisdiction Over RINL Arbitration Challenge Despite Delhi Seat: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the courts at Visakhapatnam have jurisdiction to hear Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award, despite the arbitral tribunal later recording New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.

Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that the parties had agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Visakhapatnam courts while separately providing for different venues for conducting the arbitration.

“In the instant case, Article 18 of the agreement clearly stipulates that the Courts at Visakhapatnam shall have exclusive jurisdiction, which would exclude the parties from contending that the seat of arbitration is at somewhere else. The agreement, after excluding all other Courts except the Courts at Visakhapatnam, stated that the venue may be at a different place,” the court held.

The dispute arose from a contract between RINL and a consortium comprising Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche SPA, Danieli India Ltd and Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co Ltd for construction of a structural mill at Visakhapatnam.

RINL filed the Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award dated February 26, 2025.

The Italian contractor consortium argued that New Delhi was the seat of arbitration and only its courts could hear the Section 34 challenge. RINL relied on Article 18, which gave exclusive jurisdiction to Visakhapatnam courts while allowing arbitration at several venues, including New Delhi. The contract's GCC also listed New Delhi and Mumbai as venues for foreign contracts under ICC Rules.

The consortium relied on the Terms of Reference, which recorded New Delhi as the seat. RINL disputed this, and the High Court found no material showing that the parties had agreed to change the seat from Visakhapatnam. It held that the tribunal could not override the existing agreement by fixing New Delhi as the seat.

Referring to Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and Supreme Court rulings on the distinction between seat and venue, the court held that the tribunal could not override the parties' agreement by treating New Delhi as the seat.

The court also took note of the contractor consortium's earlier proceedings before the Visakhapatnam court. It observed that the consortium had invoked the court's jurisdiction under Section 9 and had also filed execution proceedings before it.

“The respondents having invoked jurisdiction of this court under Section 9 by filing an Execution Petition before this court, and having entered into an agreement with the applicant that the courts at Visakhapatnam shall alone have jurisdiction, cannot now contend that this Court has no jurisdiction,” the court held.

The High Court accordingly answered the jurisdictional issue in favour of RINL and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 challenge.