The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the absence of the place of arbitration in an arbitral award does not render it invalid. 

In this case, an arbitral award was contested before the Commercial Court in Prayagraj, which found that the omission of the arbitration venue made the award non-speaking and consequently set it aside. Both parties subsequently appealed the Commercial Court's decision before the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Counsel for the appellant-claimant, M/s Mukesh and Associates, contended that the omission of the place of arbitration in the award does not render it non-speaking. It was further argued that since the arbitration clause explicitly stated that proceedings were to be conducted in Allahabad, arbitration could not have taken place elsewhere.  

On the other hand, counsel for Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, opposed the Commercial Court's order, arguing that the award had not been examined on its merits.

Upon examining the arbitration clause, the Court noted that the parties had explicitly agreed to Allahabad as the place of arbitration, as stated in the clause: “proceedings will be conducted at ALLAHABAD.”

“Once the agreement between the parties in this regard is clear and specific and it is nobody's case that the said clause was, in any way, violated and/or on account of any intervening circumstance, the Commercial Court at Prayagraj had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, the mere absence of mentioning of place of arbitration in the award impugned, by itself would not vitiate the award,” held the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra.

The Court ruled that while Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requires the place of arbitration to be mentioned in the arbitral award, its omission is not a mandatory condition that would render the award invalid.

“The mentioning or absence of such mention in the arbitral award may assume significance, in a case where there is dispute between the parties on the said aspect, which is not the case in the present matter. All the clauses of Section 31 cannot be viewed in a manner that absence of any of the requirements enumerated therein would lead to award being vitiated.”

The Court further noted that the Commercial Court had preemptively concluded the award to be invalid solely due to the omission of the place of arbitration, without considering any arguments on merits.  

Consequently, the order of the Commercial Court was set aside.

Case Title: M/s Mukesh and Associates v. Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT), Allahabad [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 460 of 2024]

Counsel for Appellant: Naman Agarwal, Nipun Singh, Parijat Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent: Bidhan Chandra Rai, S A Husain