The Shashoua Principle has been followed repeatedly in a series of decisions [See, BGS SGS Soma JV v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd., 2020 (4) SCC 234]. Court, in facts of this case, is of opinion, it is inessential to explain or notice difference between ‘venue’ and ‘seat’.

– Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, NV Engineering v. Jindal Drugs Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 8607].

Also see, M/s. Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 1556 of 2021] decided on 13.04.2021 and BBR India Private Limited v. S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited, [Civil Appeal Nos. 4130-4131 of 2022] decided on 18.05.2022.

_____

BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234 held, wherever in an Arbitration Agreement there is designation of a place of Arbitration as ‘venue’ of Arbitral Proceedings, such place effectively is ‘seat’ of Arbitration.

The aforesaid test was approvingly applied by this Court in Mankastu Impex Private Ltd. v. AirVisual Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 399.  

The sum and substance of Arbitration is derived from choices of parties and their intentions contained in an Arbitration Agreement. It is Court’s duty to give weight and due consideration to each choice made by parties and to construe an Arbitration Agreement in a manner that aligns most with such stipulations and intentions.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Micromax Informatics FZE, [Arbitration Petition No. 31 of 2023] decided on 07.11.2024.

_____

Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678 held, one a ‘seat’ is designated, it operates as the centre of gravity of Arbitrations and vests exclusive jurisdiction in Courts of the place. The designation of a ‘seat’, therefore, carries with it significant legal consequences. The ‘venue’ is merely a geographical location for convenience. It does not confer jurisdiction on Courts of that place if it is different from designated ‘seat’. Where ‘seat’ is not expressly designated, Courts determine it applying ‘closest and most intimate connection’ test [Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A., (1988) (1) Lloyd’s Law Reports 116].

– Hon’ble Justice Alok Aradhe, J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited, [Diary No. 44792 of 2025] decided on 16.04.2026.