2019年5月10日,在Dwarika Projects Ltd.v. Superintending Engineer and others一案中(判决请见:页尾附件),在仲裁协议未明确约定仲裁地,以及仲裁庭也未确定仲裁地的情况下,当事双方在印度不同地方的法院提起针对仲裁裁决的诉讼,关于其是否拥有受理本案争议管辖权问题,印度新德里高等法院作出认定:从主合同的约定以及履行情况可以看出,当事各方并不存在将新德里作为仲裁地的意图;在本案中,仲裁庭在仲裁地或自然管辖法院以外的地方作出裁决属于偶然情况,除非当事人同意,否则不会导致该地法院拥有管辖权。
一、案情介绍
2012年12月21日,本案原告印度公司Dwarika Projects Ltd.(以下简称“原告”)与被告Superintending Engineer(以下简称“被告”)签订了建筑施工合同,合同履行地在印度哈里亚纳邦(Haryana)Karnal市,工程于2013年1月5日开始施工。
在合同履行期间,原告两次请求延长主工程的完成时间,但被告均予以拒绝。2014年5月13日,被告终止双方合同,并将争议按约定提交仲裁。2017年7月7日,仲裁庭以多数人意见作出仲裁裁决,当事双方对该裁决结果均不满意。
2017年9月15日,原告向新德里高等法院提交申请,请求法院撤销仲裁裁决。与此同时,2017年10月14日,本案被告向Karnal市补充地区法院(the AdditionalDistrict of Karnal)提出诉讼。原告主张,由于新德里高等法院优先收到诉讼请求,其应拥有受理后续请求的管辖权(“that since its petition had been filed prior at a point in time in the usual and normal course, this Court had acquired jurisdiction in the matter and therefore all subsequent applications and petitions can be filed only inthis Court.”)。
二、新德里高等法院认定
关于本院是否拥有受理本案争议的管辖权问题,原告主张新德里高等法院拥有本案的管辖权,理由如下:
(1)依据印度《仲裁法》第34条提出仲裁裁决异议之诉的诉因是仲裁裁决的作出,本案中,仲裁裁决在新德里作出,故诉因产生于新德里(“A necessary concomitant of this submission is that the cause of action will arise at the place where the Award is rendered. In this particularcase, the Award was rendered both by the majority and minority members at NewDelhi.”);
(2)应当将仲裁标的(subject matter of arbitration)与诉讼标的(subject matter of a suit)相区分,《仲裁法》第2(1)(e)条所指仲裁标的包括因主合同产生的争议,以及因仲裁员指定、仲裁程序的进行、仲裁员在仲裁中适用的规则以及仲裁裁决的公布而产生争议(“There is a distinction between the "subject matter of arbitration" and the "subject matter of a suit". Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act speaks about the "subject matter of the arbitration".”“ In other words, the expression "subject matter of the arbitration" takes within its fold the disputes arising out of the underlying contract as well as disputes arising out of appointment, conduct of arbitration, application of rules relating to arbitration by the Arbitrator and, finally, the publication of the Award.”),由于仲裁裁决是在新德里作出,即仲裁程序在其管辖区域内,故该地法院拥有受理争议的管辖权(“The fact that the proceedings were conducted within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, which led to passing of the subject Award, would lend jurisdiction to this Court.”)。其中支持该观点的判例有:Bharat Aluminium Company vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.,(2012) 9 SCC 552、 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. vs. Debdas Routh & Anr., 2017 SCC、Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.,FAO(OS)(COMM.)67/2017。
(3)本案涉及的仲裁程序中,除了2项程序,其他程序均发生在新德里;考虑到当事双方并未在仲裁条款中约定仲裁地,仲裁庭也在程序命令中提出“将在缔约方同意的前提下在新德里或Chandigarh进行会议,在可能情况下会在新德里进行”(“meetings will be held at New Delhi/Chandigarh with the consent ofthe parties. As far as possible it will be at New Delhi.”),故原告主张,除非另外约定,仲裁场所(venueof arbitration)将等同于仲裁地(seat of arbitration)。此外,原告还主张,由于仲裁协议与主合同具有可分离性,故主合同的内容不得构成法院管辖权的基础(“Since the arbitration agreement was separate, the ingredients of the main contract could not form the basis of fixing the jurisdiction of the Court.”)。
被告却主张,由于主合同履行地在哈里亚纳邦Karnal市,作为主合同的一部分,仲裁条款中并未约定关于仲裁地以及仲裁场所的任何内容(“that the arbitration clause which stood incorporated in the Agreement did not provide for either the seat or the venue or even the place of arbitration.”),且主合同的招标文件中明确约定有“管辖法院位于Karnal市”,故新德里法院不具有受理本案争议的管辖权。
新德里高等法院认为,首先,基于仲裁庭组成人员仲裁员的便利情况,仲裁程序在新德里和Chandigarh同时进行,对此,法院认为,即使仲裁程序主要部分在新德里进行,也不能因此认定仲裁地就是新德里(“Therefore, in my opinion, the mere fact that the arbitration proceedings were held, largely, in Delhi would not have me hold that the seat of arbitration was New Delhi.”)。
其次,针对原告提出的仲裁场所等同于仲裁地这一主张,法院明确指出,仲裁庭确定的仲裁场所并不等同于确定管辖地或仲裁地(“To put it plainly, the fixing of the venue of arbitration by the Arbitral Tribunal would not be the same thing as fixing jurisdictional place or seat of arbitration.”)。这一观点曾在判例M/s HLL Lifecare Ltd. Vs. M/s Happy Electricals, OMP(COMM) 173/2018中提出,且印度最高院在Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1640一案中提出类似观点。
最后,根据当事人之间合同约定可知,当事双方很明显是打算让新德里以外地方的法院对双方争议拥有管辖权(“As noted hereinabove, it is quite evident that the parties had intended that Courts outside New Delhi would have jurisdiction in the matter.”),具体包括:合同履行地、主工程所在地均在Karnal市,以及招标文件也约定Karnal市法院拥有管辖权等等,种种迹象都表明,当事双方在约定合同时并未考虑将新德里法院作为管辖双方争议的法院。
综上所述,法院得出结论:从主合同的约定以及履行情况可以看出,当事各方并不存在将新德里作为仲裁地的意图;在本案中,仲裁庭在仲裁地或自然管辖法院以外的地方作出裁决属于偶然情况,除非当事人同意,否则不会导致该地法院拥有管辖权(“The aforementioned aspects, to my mind, are indicators that parties never intended to have Delhi as the seat of arbitration. The fortuitous circumstance of having an Award being rendered at a place other than the place which is a seat of arbitration or the Court of natural jurisdiction would not, by itself, lend jurisdiction to the Court in which the Award is passed unless parties agree to the contrary.”)。此外,原告先于被告在新德里法院提起诉讼并不能该法院因此拥有受理争议的管辖权(“The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that it must have the first-mover advantage would not help its cause in view of my conclusion that this Court had no jurisdiction, to begin with, to entertain the petition.”)。故法院裁定驳回起诉。
三、评析
本案涉及一个重要问题,即当事双方未明确约定仲裁地的情况下,仲裁开庭地(venue of arbitration)是否能等同于仲裁地(seat of arbitration)?对此,印度新德里高等法院给出明确答复,仲裁开庭地不能等同于仲裁地。具体而言,无论仲裁程序的主体部分是否在某一地点进行,以及无论当事人是否优先在该地提起诉讼,只要当事双方未对仲裁地事先或事后进行明确约定,都不能以此认定仲裁开庭地就等同于仲裁地。在这种情况下,判断双方争议的管辖法院,需结合其他多种因素认定当事双方是否在管辖法院的问题存在约定或明显的意图,如本案中的招标文件存在相关约定,再结合合同履行地以及其他因素,来认定管辖双方争议的合适法院。由此可见,在充分体现当事人自由意志的仲裁程序中,即使在管辖法院认定这一问题上,也需要对当事人在订立合同时的意图进行充分的考量。