1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 75 of 2023 Decided on: 27.7.2026 State of H.P. … Petitioner Versus Sukh Dev Sharma …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.G. For the Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) In view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited versus Datawind Innovations Private Limited and others, reported in 2017(7) Supreme Court Cases 678, the present case is required to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. Relevant paragraph-20 of the judgment is reproduced as under: 2 “A conspectus of all the aforesaid provisions shows that the moment the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seat of arbitration is Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear that jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Mumbai courts. Under the Law of Arbitration, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to suits filed in courts, a reference to "seat" is a concept by which a neutral venue can be chosen by the parties to an arbitration clause. The neutral venue may not in the classical sense have jurisdiction - that is, no part of the cause of action may have arisen at the neutral venue and neither would any of the provisions of Section 16 to 21 of the CPC be attracted. In arbitration law however, as has been held above, the moment "seat" is determined, the fact that the seat is at Mumbai would vest Mumbai courts with exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties.” 2. A similar view has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘M/s Inox Renewables Ltd. versus Jayesh Electricals Ltd., reported in 2023 (3) SCC 733. Relevant paragraph-13 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “This case would show that the moment the seat is chosen as Ahmedabad, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, thereby vesting the courts at Ahmedabad with exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the arbitration. However, learned counsel for the Respondent referred to and relied upon paragraphs 49 and 71 of the 3 aforesaid judgment. Paragraph 49 only dealt with the aspect of concurrent jurisdiction as dealt with in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 ["BALCO"] which does not arise on the facts of the present case. Paragraph 71 is equally irrelevant, in that, it is clear that the parties have, by mutual agreement, entered into an agreement to substitute the venue at Jaipur with Ahmedabad as the place/seat of arbitration under Section 20(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” 3. In view of above, the case is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. 4. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Shimla, on 27.8.2026. (Virender Singh) 27.7.2026 Judge Kalpana