Does mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a location determine the juridical seat of arbitration?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.11(6) — s.34 — s.42 — s.2(1)(e) — Seat and venue of arbitration — Territorial jurisdiction — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Seat and venue — Determination of seat — Held: Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a location does not by itself, or per se, determine the juridical seat of arbitration. Seat determines the courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction, while venue merely denotes the physical location where the sittings are held. (¶27, 28) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.11(6) — Appointment by a High Court — Seat not thereby fixed — Held further: The seat of a High Court does not confer jurisdiction on its courts merely because it appointed the arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. (¶30) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Territorial jurisdiction — Entire State — Held further: Section 34 of the Act confers jurisdiction on every court within a High Court's territorial jurisdiction, unless the parties have agreed to the contrary or there is a specific determination of a seat; the appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. (¶31, 32)