Forum Non Conveniens Applies Where Arbitration Clause Specifies Multiple Seats: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that where an arbitration agreement designates two possible seats of arbitration, the principle of forum non conveniens may apply. However, Court clarified that this principle has no application where the parties have expressly agreed that the courts of one place will have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the agreement.

Holding that party autonomy is of primary importance in interpreting an arbitration agreement, a Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi dismissed special leave petitions challenging the Telangana High Court's order appointing an arbitrator.

Why did the Supreme Court uphold the Telangana High Court's jurisdiction?

Court noted that the arbitration clause stated that "the seat and venue of the arbitration shall be Hyderabad, Telangana state or Guwahati, Assam state". However, the same clause further provided that "courts in Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to or arising from this agreement".

According to the Bench, a holistic reading of the clause showed that although the parties had identified two possible seats or venues for arbitration, they had unequivocally agreed that only the courts in Hyderabad would exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising from the agreement.

What was the dispute before the Supreme Court?

Petitioner Bhartia Infra Projects Limited challenged the Telangana High Court's orders dated February 27 and April 2, 2026, by which it referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner argued that the Telangana High Court lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator and that the Gauhati High Court was the appropriate forum.

It submitted that the work order had been issued from Guwahati, the entire work was to be executed there, and the cause of action had also arisen in Guwahati. On that basis, it had approached the Gauhati High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

The petitioner also argued that the Telangana High Court had failed to apply the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Arif Azim Company Limited v. Micromax Informatics FZE and had wrongly allowed the Section 11 application merely because it had been filed earlier.

Why was the Arif Azim ruling held inapplicable?

The Bench noted that in Arif Azim Company Limited, a three-judge Bench had held that where two or more possible places are designated as the seat of arbitration, the principle of forum non conveniens would apply.

However, Court held that the present case stood on a different footing because the parties had expressly conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Hyderabad.

"Such proposition of law though unexceptionable is inapplicable in the facts where the parties have themselves agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Hyderabad in the arbitration clause itself. Party autonomy being of primary importance in interpretation of the arbitration agreement, we are of the considered view, the ratio in Arif Azim Company Limited is factually distinguishable where the supervisory jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court over the arbitration is clearly discernible from the clause itself," the Bench observed.

Finding no reason to interfere with the Telangana High Court's orders, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions.

Case Title: Bhartia Infra Projects Limited Vs Vishwa Samudra Engineering Private Limited

Bench: Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: June 15, 2026