While determining the Country whose laws would be applicable for determining the appointment of an arbitrator, it was held, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs. Airvisual Limited MANU/SC/0283/2020,
that the entire arbitration agreement needs to be evaluated to differentiate between the seat and venue of arbitration. In the present case it was held that this dispute is subject to the jurisdiction of Hong Kong Court.
“It is well-settled that “seat of arbitration” and “venue of arbitration” cannot be used inter-changeably. It has also been established that mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the “seat” of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the “seat” should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties……Since the arbitration is seated at Hong Kong, the petition filed by the Petitioner Under Section 11(6) of the Act is not maintainable and the petition is liable to be dismissed.”