The Court held that the place of arbitration would not become the seat of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court other than the seat Court because the same would be a contrary indicia and the place of arbitration would merely be the venue and only the Court at which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall have the jurisdiction to decide all applications arising out of the arbitration between the parties. The Court referred to judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts to hold that the mere expression 'place of arbitration' cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties to declare that place as the "Seat of Arbitration". It held that intention of the parties to designate a place as seat of arbitration is instead determined on the basis of other relevant clauses.