The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for the sale of 40,000 WMT (Wet Metric Tonne) of Iron Ore Pellets. Dispute arose between the parties regarding the price and payment terms and the appellant did

As per Section 20(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act) the parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration and sub-section (2) states that if they fail to reach an agreement, the place of arbitration is determined by the arbitral tribunal, having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties. Section 20(3) of AC Act introduces an option by providing that the arbitrator/tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, may meet at any place it considers appropriate for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the parties, for inspection of documents, goods or other property. Parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Party autonomy has to be construed in the context of parties choosing a court which has jurisdiction out of two or more competent courts having jurisdiction. The case is similar to the Supreme Court judgement in Brahmani River Pellets Limited (Appellant) vs. Kamachi Industries Limited (Respondent) . In this case, the appellant contested the petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court on the ground that the parties have agreed that the Seat of arbitration be Bhubaneswar. The Hon'ble supreme court observed that Section 2(1) (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) defines the "Court" with reference to the term "subject-matter of the suit". As per Section 2(1) (e) of the Act, if the "subject-matter of the suit" is situated within the arbitral jurisdiction of two or more courts, the parties can agree to confine the jurisdiction in one of the competent courts. In para (96) of BALCO, the Supreme Court held that the term "subject matter" in Section 2(1) (e) of the Act is to identify the court having supervisory control over the arbitral proceedings. As per Section 20 of the Act, parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Party autonomy has to be construed in the context of parties choosing a court that has jurisdiction out of two or more competent courts having jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed that when the parties agreed to have the "venue" of arbitration at Bhubaneswar, the Madras High Court erred in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Since only the Orissa High Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Act. The impugned order was liable to be set aside. Therefore, the Madras High Court was not justified in appointing the arbitrator.