2. In the absence of an agreement referred to in paragraph 1, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal taking into account the circumstances of the particular case, including the comfort of the parties. In accordance with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”), all courts have jurisdiction over all civil actions, unless jurisdiction is explicitly or implicitly excluded. In addition, Section 20 of the CPC provides that an action may be brought either at the place where the defendant has his habitual residence or carries on business activities, or where part of the plea is created. Section 20 clarifies that more than one court may have jurisdiction over the remedy (for example, where part of the plea is created in a place other than that where the defendant has his habitual residence or carries on business). There may also be situations in which the remedy is brought in several places that fall under the jurisdiction of different courts. Indeed, in the case of Aarka Sports Management Pvt. Ltd vs. Kalsi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd (ARB.P.
662/2019), on 6 July 2020, the Delhi High Court was recently seized of a similar matter. An application for the appointment of an arbitrator was made by the plaintiff to the Delhi High Court in accordance with section 11 of the Act. In accordance with the arbitration clause, exclusive jurisdiction was delegated to the delhi courts, but the agreement remained silent on the choice of the parties on the seat of arbitration. The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to rule on this petition. According to the respondent, Delhi was not the seat of the arbitration and no remedy was filed in Delhi. .