Priyam Sharma, Advocate, Bombay High Court
ABSTRACT
A robust legal ecosystem is a key factor in bolstering investor confidence thereby encouraging investment and business. In an attempt to resolve disputes in a time bound and a cost-effective manner, businesses usually opt for Arbitration as means of dispute resolution to avoid the long-drawn Court room battle. However, parties in their free-spirited autonomy often fail to consider the effects and the workability of the exclusive jurisdiction clause that has been bestowed upon the chosen Arbitrator and the Courts therein, sometimes reluctantly rendering themselves remediless. This article briefly analyzes the scope and the tests of jurisdiction that ought to be kept in mind while a. conferring jurisdiction on Courts by party autonomy b. crystallizing the intention of the parties to confer jurisdiction in the context of “seat” and “venue” under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt Ltd v Aditya Kumar Chatterjee.
Comments