Trace Your Case


Aniket SA Investments LLC v. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Private Limited and Ors. (Commercial Appeal No. 504 of 2019)


  • Whether there is concurrent jurisdiction of two Courts, is the Impugned Order correct to hold that as a matter of party autonomy, the parties have made an express choice in conferring jurisdiction on the Courts?


  • A choice of seat is itself an expression of party autonomy and carries with it the legal effect of conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of the seat.


  • A foreign investor named Aniket SA Investments LLC is the appellant, and a Telangana-based special-purpose vehicle named Janapriya Engineers and Syndicate Private Limited is the respondent.
  • A shareholders’ and share subscription agreement had been signed by the Respondent and the Appellant and due to disagreements between them, it led to a dispute notice to initiate arbitration.
  • The relevant clauses of the Agreement are Clause 20.3 (Governing Law and Jurisdiction) which provided jurisdiction to Courts at Hyderabad and Clause 20.4 which provided jurisdiction to Courts at Mumbai.
  • The Appellant then submitted a petition by Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • As a point of party autonomy, the learned single judge of the Bombay High Court noted that the parties had explicitly chosen to give Hyderabad’s Court jurisdiction over their dispute. Therefore, Mumbai’s selection as a “seat” was ignored by the Impugned Order.
  • So, to contest the Impugned Order, an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Act.


  • The Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge.
  • The act of selecting a venue is the party’s autonomy and has the legal consequence of granting the venue’s Court exclusive authority.
  • The arbitration clause has expressly been established to be “subject to” the Court of Choice in Hyderabad. Mumbai has been designated as the arbitral venue, according to the arbitration clause’s clear language. As a result, Mumbai would be the only Court with jurisdiction.
  • The choice of Courts at Hyderabad is made “subject to” the seat at Mumbai, which amounts to a choice of Courts at Mumbai, even if it were to be understood that two concurrent Courts would have jurisdiction.