Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ms Activitas Management Advisor Pvt Ltd vs Mind Plus Healthcare Private Limited on 5 August, 2025
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (C) NO. 27714 OF 2024]
M/S ACTIVITAS MANAGEMENT ADVISOR PRIVATE Appellant(s)
LIMITED
VERSUS
MIND PLUS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated
27.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in ARB-130-2024, whereby the High Court allowed the
application filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’).
3. Appellant, a management consultancy firm was engaged by the
respondent. The agreement that the appellant and the respondent
have entered into on 09.07.2023 has an arbitration clause and it
also provides that “client hereby submits to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai in
connection with any dispute related to this letter or any of the
matters contemplated thereby”. Clause 10 of the Agreement is as
Signature Not Verified
under:
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.08.12
20:20:25 IST
Reason:
“10. Governing Law-This Letter shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with Indian Law.
1
Client hereby submits the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai in
connection with any dispute related to this
letter or any of the matters contemplated hereby.
In case, any dispute arises between the parties
with respect to above-mentioned agreement.
Parties hereby agree to appoint sole Arbitrator
by consent of either parties as per section 11 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, and can
amicably resolve their dispute as per the
procedure laid down in Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996 before approaching
appropriate court for the same.”
4. For resolution of disputes, the appellant invoked Section 21
and sought reference of the dispute to an Arbitral Tribunal. The
respondent initially replied stating that they have already
appointed a person as a sole arbitrator and this was objected to by
the appellant. Thereafter the appellant came to know that the
respondent proceeded to file an application under Section 11 of the
Act before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Appellant appeared
and opposed the said application on the ground that the arbitration
clause specifically reserves the exclusive jurisdiction of Mumbai
High Court. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court proceeded to
appoint an arbitrator. The relevant portion of the order passed by
the High Court is as follows:
“5. In view of judgment dated 06.08.2024 passed
by this Court in ARB No.49 of 2023, M/s I Care
Consultancy v. M/s Mahindra and Mahindra
Financial Services Limited and others, the
objection of the respondent qua territorial
jurisdiction is not sustainable.
6. Conditions to invoke power conferred by
Section 11(6) of 1996 Act stand satisfied, thus,
I hereby appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
the dispute between the parties.
7. Mr. V.K. Gupta, District & Sessions Judge
(Retired), residing at House No. 70, Punjab
2
Judges Enclave, Sector 77, Mohali -140308, Mobile
No. 7696572387 is hereby appointed as a Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties, subject to compliance of statutory
requirements. The learned Arbitrator is requested
to comply with mandate of Section 12 of 1996 Act
before proceeding further.”
5. Mr. Dhawal Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, made his solitary argument that the arbitration
between the parties must be as per clause 10 of the contract,
agreeing to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai High
Court.
6. Mr. Rohan Ganpathy on the other hand sought to sustain the
order passed by the High Court on the grounds that courts, as
defined under Section 11 of the Act enables his client to invoke
jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
7. In Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd. 1,
this Court observed that:
“18. Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction
of the court at a particular place, only such
court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the
matter and parties intended to exclude all other
courts…
19… Since only the Orissa High Court will have
the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed
under Section 11 (6) of the Act, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside. ”
8. Though clause 10 does not use the expression ‘seat’ or
‘venue’, we are of the opinion that the ‘jurisdiction’ is mentioned
in the context of resolution of the disputes through arbitration
and as such the agreement between the parties that, “client hereby
submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts
1 (2020) 5 SCC 462
3
located in Mumbai” must be understood in the context of arbitration
and therefore the seat of the arbitration must be taken to be
Mumbai.
9. We are informed that the appellant has already filed an
application under Section 11 before the Mumbai High Court the same
is pending consideration.
10. In view of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment and order passed by the High Court in ARB-130-2024 dated
27.09.2024. The appellant will be entitled to pursue his
application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act and the respondent is equally entitled to contest the said
application on such grounds as may be available to it in law.
11. With these directions, the appeal stands allowed and disposed
of accordingly.
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 05, 2025
4
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27714/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-09-2024
in ARB No. 130/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh]
MS ACTIVITAS MANAGEMENT ADVISOR PVT LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MIND PLUS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
Date : 05-08-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhawal Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Amir Arsiwala, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rohan Ganpathy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
5
[ad_1]
Source link