In Brief
The Supreme Court held that where an arbitration agreement specifies only the venue (place where proceedings are held) but not the juridical seat, and incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law, the Arbitral Tribunal must determine and clearly state the seat in its award. Mere holding of proceedings or signing the award at a location does not constitute such determination. Without agreement on or determination of the juridical seat, Indian courts retain jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the award. The court set aside the Delhi High Court's dismissal and allowed the Union of India's appeal, directing the High Court to consider the Section 34 application on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.