Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Seat vs. Venue In Arcis Clean Energy v. Parshva Innovation

Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation, 2026 INSC 1109 (Supreme Court of India, decided 12 October 2026)

Background

The Supreme Court has addressed a recurring problem in arbitration drafting: what happens when an arbitration clause names two different places, and a separate jurisdiction clause points to one of them. The dispute arose from a Franchise Agreement dated 3 August 2023 between Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) and Parshva Innovation (respondent). After the respondent proposed a sole arbitrator by notice dated 25 March 2025 and the appellant rejected the proposal on 19 April 2025, the respondent approached the Delhi High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court appointed an arbitrator on 11 November 2025 and left the venue of hearings to be decided in consultation with the parties. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction because the juridi