Seat v. Venue In Contemporary Arbitral Jurisprudence

Introduction

Indian arbitration jurisprudence has undoubtedly witnessed many controversies with regard to the various facets of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). Notable controversies include the applicability of Part 1 of the Act to internationally seated arbitration agreements which began from Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA¹  which was finally settled by the Supreme Court in 2012 in e Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.²(BALCO). Other notable controversies include subject-matter of arbitrability of disputes till the judgment of the Supreme Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.³ and more particularly the arbitrability of fraud claims that lasted decades until it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam⁴ and more recently in the seminal judgment in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.⁵. The latest controversy that has gained considerable importance