27. As per the Appellants, the arbitral proceedings were held at Cuttack only for the sake of convenience of the Arbitrator. Nothing to the contrary has been pointed out by learned senior counsel for the Respondent. Thus, mere conduct of arbitral proceedings could not per se determine the juridical seat of arbitration.

28. There is a distinction between “seat” and “venue” of arbitration. While ‘Seat’ determines the Courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings, ‘Venue’ merely denoted the physical location where the sitting are held. In the absence of any express designation of Cuttack as the seat, the High Court clearly erred in treating the venue of the arbitration as the seat.