It is settled law, that Section 20(1) and 20(2) where the word ‘place’ is used, refers to ‘juridical seat’, whereas in Section 20(3), the word ‘place’ is equivalent to ‘venue’.
My Lord, What is the correct depiction of the practical considerations and the distinction between ‘seat’ [Sections 20(1) and 20(2)] and ‘venue’ [Section 20(3)]?
This, as per Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal Nos. 5370-5371 of 2017]:
“There is only one ‘place’ of Arbitration. This will be the place chosen by or on behalf of the parties; and it will be designated in the Arbitration Agreement or the terms of the reference or the minutes of proceedings or in some other way as the place or ‘seat’ of the Arbitration.
This does not mean, however, that the Arbitral Tribunal must hold all its meetings or hearings at the place of Arbitration. International Commercial Arbitration often involves people of many different nationalities, from many different countries. In these circumstances, it is by no means unusual for an Arbitral Tribunal to hold meetings – or even hearings – in a place other than the designated place of Arbitration, either for its own convenience or for the convenience of the parties or their witnesses.
It may be more convenient for an Arbitral Tribunal sitting in one country to conduct a hearing in another country – for instance, for the purpose of taking evidence. In such circumstances, each move of the Arbitral Tribunal does not of itself mean that the seat of Arbitration changes. The seat of the Arbitration remains the place initially agreed by or on behalf of the parties.”
– Redfern and Hunter, The Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (1986) at p. 69.