Contract and Specific Relief – Arbitration Clause – Interpretation –* Arbitration clause referring to both Mumbai and Chennai as jurisdictional forums – Applicability of contra proferentem rule – Held, where ambiguity exists in jurisdiction clause, it must be construed against the party that drafted the contract – Reference to Chennai courts, when inconsistent with factual matrix and other clauses, is to be treated as repugnant and void *Practice and Procedure – Jurisdiction –*

[11/06, 08:07] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx-4u0maMTh7J6E-jwuAOqljAavq75ICDk?si=rl4x7MEaWobkx4qk
[11/06, 08:07] sekarreporter1: *Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss. 9, 11 and 42 –*
Territorial jurisdiction – Determination of seat vs. venue – Conflict in jurisdiction clause – Seat of arbitration at Mumbai but clause also stated “Chennai courts alone to have exclusive jurisdiction” – Held, where entire cause of action arose in Maharashtra, contract executed in Sangli/Mumbai, and venue fixed at Mumbai, Chennai courts lacked territorial jurisdiction – Contradictory reference to Chennai courts held to be typographical and repugnant – Mumbai courts held to have exclusive jurisdiction – Section 42 inapplicable where initial application was not determined on merits but was still pending – Consent to appointment of Advocate Commissioner cannot confer jurisdiction – Held, court lacking territorial jurisdiction cannot acquire jurisdiction by consent or participation – Jurisdictional objection can be raised at any time – All applications under Ss. 9 and 11 dismissed with liberty to approach competent court at Mumbai.

*Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar, (2024) 4 SCC 318, applied*
*Doctrine of contra proferentem, explained and applied*
*Principle: Order passed by court lacking jurisdiction is nullity*

*Contract and Specific Relief – Arbitration Clause – Interpretation –*
Arbitration clause referring to both Mumbai and Chennai as jurisdictional forums – Applicability of contra proferentem rule – Held, where ambiguity exists in jurisdiction clause, it must be construed against the party that drafted the contract – Reference to Chennai courts, when inconsistent with factual matrix and other clauses, is to be treated as repugnant and void

*Practice and Procedure – Jurisdiction –*

Consent or failure to object at earlier stage – Whether estoppel – Held, there can be no estoppel against statute – Participation or consent in procedural matters (like appointment of Commissioner) does not confer jurisdiction where none exists – Jurisdictional objection can be raised at any stage