MATTERS CONCERNING SEAT AND VENUE OF ARBITRATION: CRITICAL AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The parties going for arbitration must confine their mind to the assorted aspects of the Mediation process while choosing a seat under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The selection of seats or venues in conflict during arbitration will be seen through the instance of various countries including India. The paper explores the selection of seats and venues in domestic arbitration. It mainly widens the view of whether the change of venue of arbitration needs a mutual agreement or not. It focuses on the issues that arose before the Supreme Court while resolving the dispute of selecting seats during adjudication. The broader aspect on which this paper relies is the conundrum of the seat and venue of adjudication. Further, it’ll examine the curious case of seat/venue/place in arbitration and therefore the need for legal practitioners to use clear phraseology. It’ll explore the numerous features of selecting a seat for arbitration as an analysis. In addition, the paper is going to cope up with the deepening crisis within the seat venue debate in ‘Indian Arbitration’. Further, the impact of seats in arbitration, then Indian parties choosing the foreign seat of arbitration, and seat v. venue in contemporary arbitral jurisprudence are some important facts that we’d like to grasp. It highlights the recent position of law decided by the Apex Court with relation to the determination of seat of arbitration and at last provides the distinction between seat and venue of Arbitration. Before summarising the entire paper we are going to have a glance at a number of remarkable controversies associated with the seat of adjudication. Lastly, some suggestions are going to be given and through these suggestions, we’ve tried to resolve the dispute that arises during the selection of seat or venue.