Question

The concept of Seat in an arbitration indicates to:

• A. venue where arbitration happens
• B. jurisdiction in which arbitration is situated
• C. courts capable of enforcing an arbitral award
• D. nationality of arbitrators

Hint:

In arbitration law, “seat” determines juridical jurisdiction, not merely where proceedings are physically held.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding “seat” vs “venue”.
- The seat of arbitration determines the juridical home of the arbitration. It fixes the procedural law (lex arbitri) governing the arbitration.
- The venue is merely the physical location where hearings take place — it may differ from the seat.
Step 2: Jurisdictional implications.
- The seat determines which court has supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration (e.g., setting aside award, interim measures).
- This was clarified by Indian Supreme Court in BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium (2012) — the “seat” has a direct legal connection with jurisdiction.
Step 3: Matching with options.
- (a) Venue — incorrect, seat ≠ venue.
- (b) Jurisdiction — correct.
- (c) Courts capable of enforcing award — enforcement is based on seat but also on New York Convention, not the seat definition itself.
- (d) Nationality of arbitrators — irrelevant to seat. \[ \boxed{(b)} \]