2019年7月25日，在Brahmani River Pellets Limited v Kamachi Industries Limited, Civil Appeal No. 5850 (2019)一案中，仲裁当事双方就委任独任仲裁员发生分歧，仲裁申请人请求Madras高等法院根据《印度仲裁与调解法》（the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996）第11（6）条委任仲裁员，仲裁被申请人对于Madras高等法院管辖权提出异议，主张仲裁地法院Orissa高等法院拥有受理双方争议的专属管辖权，但Madras高等法院认定其拥有受理双方争议的管辖权并委任了仲裁员；仲裁被申请人不服，向印度最高院提起上诉，对此，印度最高院认定：当事双方已明确约定仲裁开庭地（Venue of Arbitration）在Bhubaneswar，故Orissa高等法院作为仲裁地法院拥有受理仲裁程序争议的专属管辖权，同意上诉并撤销Madras高等法院作出的命令（“When the parties have 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 Orissa High Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Act, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”）。

一、案情介绍

本案上诉人Brahmani River Pellets Limited（以下简称“上诉人”）与被上诉人Kamachi IndustriesLimited（以下简称“被上诉人”）为国际货物买卖双方，双方协议第18条约定有仲裁条款：“仲裁应根据1996年《印度仲裁与调解法》（以下简称“《仲裁法》”）进行，开庭地（Venue of Arbitration）在Bhubaneswar”（“18. Arbitration shall be under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Law 1996 and the Venue of Arbitration shall be Bhubaneswar.”）。

后双方就合同履行发生争议，2016年10月7日，被上诉人提起仲裁程序，但与上诉人就仲裁员的委任发生分歧。2018年1月24日，被上诉人根据《仲裁法》第11（6）条请求Madras高等法院委任仲裁员。上诉人提出异议，主张当事双方已明确约定仲裁地在Bhubaneswar，其所在的Orissa高等法院拥有受理该项请求的专属管辖权，故Madras高等法院不具有管辖权（“that the parties have agreed that Seat of arbitration be Bhubaneswar and therefore, only the Orissa High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator.”）。

二、Madras高等法院认定：当事双方未明确约定排除其他法院管辖权，故其拥有受理争议的管辖权

Madras高等法院认为，在本案中，仅由当事各方指定的仲裁地并不排除其他法院的管辖权；在没有任何明确条款排除其他法院管辖权的情况下，Madras高等法院与Orissa高等法院都对仲裁程序拥有管辖权（“that mere designation of Seat by parties does not oust the jurisdiction of other courts other than at the Seat of arbitration. The High Court held that in absence of any express clause excluding jurisdiction of other courts, both the Madras High Court and the Orissa High Court will have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings.”），故决定受理被上诉人的请求，并作出命令委任一名该法院的前法官作为仲裁程序的独任仲裁员。

上诉人不服该命令，向印度最高院提出上诉，主张根据Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited and others (2017) 7 SCC 678, Unionof India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. (2018) 7 SCC 374等判例，当当事各方已约定有仲裁地或开庭地时，其就具有了仲裁地的司法地位，故仅有Orissa高等法院拥有受理本案争议的管辖权，Madras高等法院错误地根据《仲裁法》第11（6）条行使管辖权（“that when the parties have agreed for a place/venue for arbitration, it gets the status of Seat which is the juridical Seat and therefore only, the Orissa High Court will have the jurisdiction under the Act.”“that the Madras High Court erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act despite Bhubaneswar being the Seat of arbitration.”）。

被上诉人提出抗辩称，根据判例Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (2012) 9 SCC 552，由于本案诉因同时发生在两地，故Madras高等法院与Orissa高等法院都对仲裁程序拥有管辖权（“that since cause of action arose at both the places i.e.Bhubaneswar and Chennai, both Madras High Court as well as Orissa High Court will have supervisory jurisdiction.”）；再者，在国内仲裁中，除非当事各方明确约定有专属管辖法院，仅仅约定开庭地并不能使该地法院拥有专属管辖权（“that in domestic arbitration, unless the parties tie themselves to an exclusive jurisdiction of the court in the agreement, mere mention of venue as a place of arbitration will not confer exclusive jurisdiction upon that court.”）。故Madras高等法院正确行使了管辖权。

三、印度最高院认定：本案当事人约定的开庭地等同于仲裁地，仲裁地法院拥有专属管辖权

首先，最高院指出，《仲裁法》中第20（1）条和第20（2）条的“仲裁地”（Place）与第20（3）条的“开庭地”（Venue）存在不同，但需要补充的是，当仲裁协议约定的仲裁地（seat/placeof arbitration）在国外，但选择了印度仲裁法为仲裁程序适用法的情况下，二者的区分才显得极为重要（“This, in our view, is the correct depiction of the practical considerations and the distinction between seat [Sections 20(1) and 20(2)] and venue [Section 20(3)]. We may point out here that the distinction between seat and venue would be quite crucial in the event, the arbitration agreement designates a foreign country as the seat/place of the arbitration and also selects the Arbitration Act, 1996 as the curial law/law governing the arbitration proceedings.”）。

其次，关于本案中被上诉人提出的诉因发生地法院的管辖权问题，最高院认为，《仲裁法》第2（1）（e）条应当结合第20条进行解释，重视当事人的意思自治；虽然立法机构有意规定了两类管辖法院：即诉因发生地法院和仲裁发生地法院，但一般情况下仲裁发生地法院在审理争议时对于当事双方都更为中立，因此，仲裁发生地法院较于前者作为仲裁程序管辖法院更为适当（“In our view, the legislature has intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and the courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as on many occasions the agreement may provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be neutral to both the parties. Therefore, the courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process.”）。

最后，根据Indus Mobile Distribution(P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd. and others (2017) 7 SCC 678、“BALCO”案、Enercon(India) Limited and others v. Enercon GMBH and another (2014) 5 SCC 1、Reliance Industries Limited and another v. Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 603，以及Nariman大法官在《法律委员会报告》（Law Commission Report）关于修法问题上所明确指出：《仲裁法》中第20（1）条和第20（2）条使用的词“仲裁地”（Place）与第20（3）条使用的“开庭地”（Venue）相同，都指向司法管辖地（judicial seat）（“It further made it clear that Sections 20(1) and 20(2) where the word place is used, refers to juridical seat, whereas in Section 20(3), the word place is equivalent to venue.”）。

如果协议明确约定了位于特定地点的法院管辖权，那么仅有该法院拥有处理特定事项的管辖权，以及当事方有意排除其他法院的管辖（“Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts.”）。在本案中，当事双方已明确约定了开庭地在Bhubaneswar，说明双方也同时排除了其他法院的管辖（“Considering the agreement of the parties having Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration, the intention of the parties is to exclude all other courts.”）。

综上，最高院认定，当事双方已明确约定仲裁开庭地（Venue ofArbitration）在Bhubaneswar，故Orissa高等法院作为仲裁地法院拥有受理仲裁程序争议的专属管辖权，同意上诉并撤销Madras高等法院作出的命令。

四、评析

本案涉及到当事人约定“仲裁地”（Seat/Place of Arbitration）与“开庭地”（Venue of Arbitration）的问题。在本案中，当事双方的仲裁协议仅约定了“开庭地”而未约定“仲裁地”，而本案核心争议在于，本案当事双方约定的开庭地是否等同于仲裁地，以及开庭地法院是否等同于仲裁地法院，从而对于仲裁程序事项拥有专属管辖权。对此，印度最高院通过对相关法条的解释指出，法条中关于“仲裁地”（Seat/Place of Arbitration）与“开庭地”（Venue of Arbitration）的区别规定，仅在国际仲裁中的特定情形下显得较为重要；在一般情形中，如果当事双方明确约定了“开庭地”，由于充分体现了当事双方的意思自治，以及开庭地法院的中立性，该约定的效力等同约定了“仲裁地”，故开庭地法院等同于仲裁地法院拥有受理仲裁程序争议的专属管辖权。关于“仲裁地”与“开庭地”的区分适用，印度最高法院明显进行了狭义解释，该判例将如果对后续的类似案件产生影响，值得我们继续保持关注。