In J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 368, decided 15 April 2026, Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe), the dispute turned on the familiar confusion between the seat and the venue of arbitration and which court had supervisory jurisdiction.
The Court held that the seat of arbitration constitutes the juridical home of the arbitration: it determines the curial law and identifies the court having supervisory control. The venue is merely where proceedings take place for convenience. The parties' choice of seat remains binding unless they alter it by agreement.
Why it matters: the seat decides which court hears Section 9 applications, Section 34 challenges and related matters. Holding hearings in a different city does not move the seat, and a party cannot shift jurisdiction simply by pointing to where the tribunal happened to sit.
The practical takeaway for drafting: name the seat expressly and, if you want hearings elsewhere, name the venue separately. We have written more about this in our guide on seat versus venue in arbitration.
This note summarises the reported judgment for general information and is not legal advice on any specific matter.