Territorial Jurisdiction and Place of Mediation Under the Mediation Act, 2023

Territorial jurisdiction determines the geographical area within which a mediation should ordinarily be conducted and the court or tribunal connected with the dispute. Section 13 of the Mediation Act, 2023 provides a clear framework for deciding the place of mediation while preserving party autonomy. 

It also addresses mediation conducted outside the competent court’s territory and online mediation, ensuring that settlement-related proceedings remain connected to the appropriate legal forum.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

Meaning of Territorial Jurisdiction in Mediation

Territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical limits within which a court or tribunal is legally authorised to exercise its powers. In ordinary civil litigation, territorial jurisdiction helps determine the court before which a suit or proceeding may be filed.

The concept has a different but connected role in mediation. Mediation is a consensual dispute resolution process and does not involve the adjudication of rights by the mediator. A mediator does not exercise judicial power or pass a binding judgment. However, the mediation process may still have a legal connection with a particular court or tribunal.

This connection becomes important for several reasons:

• determining the ordinary place where mediation should be undertaken;
• identifying the court or tribunal competent to deal with the underlying dispute;
• registering a mediated settlement agreement;
• enforcing the settlement agreement;
• challenging the settlement agreement; and
• resolving procedural questions arising from the mediation.

The territorial rule under the Mediation Act, 2023 therefore does not convert mediation into litigation. It provides a legal anchor for the mediation and the settlement resulting from it.

Section 13 of the Mediation Act, 2023

Section 13 of the Mediation Act, 2023 deals specifically with the territorial jurisdiction for undertaking mediation. It establishes the general rule that mediation under the Act must be undertaken within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or tribunal competent to decide the subject matter of the dispute.

The provision also creates an important exception. With the mutual consent of the parties, mediation may be conducted:

• at a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the competent court or tribunal; or
• through online mediation.

The Explanation to Section 13 further clarifies the legal consequences of selecting an outside place or online mode. For registration, enforcement and challenge of the mediated settlement agreement, the mediation is deemed to have been undertaken within the territorial jurisdiction of the competent court or tribunal.

Section 13 therefore combines two important principles. First, mediation should ordinarily remain connected with the court or tribunal having jurisdiction over the dispute. Second, the parties are free to select a more convenient physical or virtual place without losing that legal connection.

General Rule Regarding the Place of Mediation

The general rule is that mediation must take place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or tribunal competent to decide the dispute.

This requires identification of the forum that would have jurisdiction if the dispute were brought before a court or tribunal for adjudication. The place of mediation is ordinarily linked to the territorial jurisdiction of that forum.

For example, a contractual dispute may arise between parties located in different cities. The competent court may be determined by considering factors such as:

• the place where the defendant resides or carries on business;
• the place where the contract was executed;
• the place where contractual obligations were to be performed;
• the place where payment was required to be made;
• the location of the property concerned; and
• the place where the cause of action arose wholly or partly.

Once the competent forum is identified, mediation should ordinarily be undertaken within its territorial jurisdiction.

This rule provides certainty at the beginning of mediation. It prevents unnecessary disagreements regarding the proper geographical connection of the process and ensures that any resulting settlement remains linked to an identifiable court or tribunal.

Meaning of Court of Competent Jurisdiction

The meaning of a competent court is important for understanding Section 13. Under the Mediation Act, a court refers to the competent court in India having the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute forming the subject matter of mediation, had that dispute been filed as a suit or proceeding.

Accordingly, competence depends on more than territorial jurisdiction alone. The court must also possess:

Territorial Jurisdiction

The dispute must have a sufficient geographical connection with the area over which the court exercises authority.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

The monetary value of the dispute must fall within the financial limits assigned to the court.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court must be legally authorised to hear the particular category of dispute. Certain matters may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of specialised courts, commissions or tribunals.

Therefore, the place of mediation cannot always be determined merely by identifying where one party resides. The nature, value and factual background of the dispute must also be examined.

Jurisdiction of a Competent Tribunal

Section 13 applies not only to courts but also to tribunals. A tribunal may have jurisdiction over disputes arising under a particular statute or regulatory framework.

Examples may include disputes falling within the jurisdiction of:

• consumer commissions;
• commercial courts or notified tribunals;
• claims tribunals;
• company law tribunals;
• debt recovery tribunals; and
• other statutory adjudicatory bodies.

Where a tribunal has exclusive or special jurisdiction over the subject matter, the ordinary place of mediation should fall within the territorial jurisdiction of that tribunal.

The relevant statute, procedural rules and jurisdictional provisions governing the tribunal must be examined before determining the appropriate place.

Party Autonomy in Selecting the Place of Mediation

One of the most significant features of Section 13 is its recognition of party autonomy. Although the provision establishes a territorial starting point, it allows the parties to choose another place by mutual consent.

The parties may select a location outside the territorial jurisdiction of the competent court or tribunal when that location is more suitable. Such a choice may be based on:

• convenience of the parties;
• availability of the mediator;
• accessibility of a mediation institution;
• neutrality of the selected location;
• travel and accommodation expenses;
• confidentiality requirements;
• availability of suitable facilities; and
• the commercial or personal circumstances of the dispute.

For instance, two companies may have a dispute connected with a court in Mumbai but may agree to conduct mediation in Delhi because their authorised representatives, lawyers and chosen mediator are available there.

Such an arrangement does not alter the territorial jurisdiction of the court competent to decide the underlying dispute. It only changes the physical location at which mediation sessions are held.

Mutual Consent Is Essential

Mediation cannot be shifted outside the territorial jurisdiction merely at the request of one party. Section 13 requires mutual consent.

The agreement concerning the place should preferably be recorded in writing. It may appear in:

• a mediation clause contained in the original contract;
• a separate mediation agreement;
• correspondence exchanged between the parties;
• the mediator’s appointment document;
• the rules of the selected mediation institution; or
• a procedural agreement signed after the dispute arises.

A written record reduces the possibility of later objections concerning the place of mediation. It also assists the mediator or mediation service provider in making suitable procedural arrangements.

Where the parties do not agree to an outside place, the general territorial rule continues to apply.

Physical Place of Mediation and Legal Jurisdiction

The physical place where mediation meetings are conducted is not necessarily the same as the legal jurisdiction connected with the mediation.

This distinction is central to Section 13. The parties may physically meet in another city or State, but the legal consequences of the mediation remain connected with the competent court or tribunal.

The physical place concerns practical matters, such as:

• where the parties and mediator will meet;
• where mediation rooms will be arranged;
• where documents may be exchanged;
• where joint and separate sessions may be held; and
• which mediation institution may provide facilities.

Legal jurisdiction, on the other hand, concerns the authority of a court or tribunal to deal with the dispute and the settlement.

The choice of a convenient physical location does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon the courts situated at that location.

Place of Mediation Does Not Create Court Jurisdiction

Parties cannot ordinarily create jurisdiction in a court that otherwise has no connection with the dispute merely by conducting mediation within that court’s territorial area.

Suppose a dispute is connected with Bengaluru and the competent court is situated there. The parties may agree to mediate in Hyderabad. The mere fact that the mediation sessions occurred in Hyderabad does not necessarily make Hyderabad courts competent to decide the original dispute or entertain settlement-related proceedings.

Section 13 avoids such confusion through its deeming provision. Even where mediation is conducted elsewhere, it is treated as having taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or tribunal competent to decide the subject matter.

Thus, the chosen meeting place provides convenience, but it does not displace the legally competent forum.

Deeming Provision Under Section 13

The Explanation to Section 13 creates a legal fiction. Where parties agree to conduct mediation outside the territorial jurisdiction of the competent forum or through online mediation, the process is deemed to have been undertaken within the territory of the competent court or tribunal.

A deeming provision requires the law to treat a particular situation as existing even where the physical facts may be different.

In this context, mediation may physically occur outside the relevant territorial area. Nevertheless, for specified legal purposes, it is treated as having occurred within that area.

The deeming rule applies particularly to:

• registration of the mediated settlement agreement;
• enforcement of the mediated settlement agreement; and
• challenge to the mediated settlement agreement.

This provision protects the legal effectiveness of settlements and prevents procedural disputes based solely on the venue selected for mediation.

Registration of a Mediated Settlement Agreement

The place of mediation becomes relevant when parties seek to register a mediated settlement agreement.

A settlement reached through mediation must comply with the requirements of the Mediation Act. Where a settlement is reached in relation to all or some of the disputes, it must be reduced to writing and signed by the parties.

Section 13 ensures that an agreement resulting from mediation conducted outside the ordinary territorial jurisdiction is not disconnected from the competent forum. For registration purposes, the mediation is deemed to have occurred within the territory of that court or tribunal.

The parties should therefore identify the competent jurisdiction correctly before taking steps connected with registration. The physical location where the settlement was negotiated or signed should not, by itself, determine the registering jurisdiction.

Enforcement of a Mediated Settlement Agreement

A mediated settlement agreement signed by the parties and authenticated in accordance with the Act is final and binding upon them. It may be enforced in the manner prescribed under the Act.

Territorial jurisdiction becomes particularly important at the enforcement stage. Without Section 13, uncertainty could arise where:

• the dispute belongs to one jurisdiction;
• the mediator is based in another jurisdiction;
• mediation sessions are held in a third jurisdiction; and
• the parties sign the agreement from different places.

The deeming rule resolves this difficulty. For enforcement, the mediation is treated as having been undertaken within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or tribunal competent to decide the underlying dispute.

Therefore, the place chosen for meetings does not weaken the enforceability of the settlement or require proceedings to be initiated in an unrelated forum.

Challenge to a Mediated Settlement Agreement

A mediated settlement agreement may be challenged only on the limited grounds recognised under the Mediation Act, including fraud, corruption, impersonation and mediation of disputes not fit for mediation.

Where a challenge is brought, the competent forum must be identified. The physical place of mediation may otherwise lead to objections and competing claims of jurisdiction.

Section 13 clarifies that even if mediation took place outside the competent territorial jurisdiction, a challenge remains connected with the court or tribunal competent in relation to the subject matter of the dispute.

This approach promotes certainty and discourages attempts to shift proceedings to an unrelated jurisdiction based merely on the location of mediation sessions.

Online Mediation and Territorial Jurisdiction

The Mediation Act expressly recognises online mediation. Online mediation may be conducted with the written consent of the parties through electronic means, including secure email services, chat rooms, video conferencing or audio conferencing.

In online mediation, there may be no single physical meeting place. The mediator may be situated in one State, one party in another State and the other party outside India. Lawyers and experts may also participate from different locations.

This creates a practical question: where is an online mediation legally deemed to occur?

Section 13 answers the question by connecting online mediation with the territorial jurisdiction of the court or tribunal competent to decide the subject matter. For registration, enforcement and challenge, the online mediation is deemed to have taken place within that jurisdiction.

The legal location therefore does not depend on:

• the mediator’s physical location;
• the server used for video conferencing;
• the place from which a party logged in;
• the location where electronic documents were signed; or
• the office of the mediation service provider.

The competent forum remains the controlling legal connection.

Written Consent for Online Mediation

Online mediation requires the written consent of the parties. Such consent is important because virtual proceedings involve specific procedural and technological considerations.

The parties may need to agree on:

• the digital platform to be used;
• identity verification procedures;
• confidentiality safeguards;
• recording restrictions;
• exchange of electronic documents;
• electronic signatures;
• private caucus arrangements;
• technical interruptions; and
• the procedure for signing the final settlement.

Consent to online mediation should not be confused with consent to confer jurisdiction upon a particular court. Online participation provides procedural flexibility, while territorial competence continues to be determined by the underlying dispute.

Court-Referred Mediation and Place of Mediation

Where a court or tribunal refers parties to mediation during pending proceedings, the territorial connection is generally clearer because the matter is already before an identified forum.

The mediation may be conducted through:

• a court-annexed mediation centre;
• a mediation service provider;
• an independently appointed mediator; or
• an online platform.

If the parties select an outside place or online mode, Section 13 preserves the jurisdictional link with the referring court or tribunal.

The parties should also comply with any directions contained in the referral order. The mediator or mediation institution may be required to submit a settlement agreement or non-settlement report to the referring forum.

Pre-Litigation Mediation and Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction may be more difficult to determine in pre-litigation mediation because no suit or proceeding has yet been filed.

In such cases, the parties must identify the court or tribunal that would have been competent to decide the dispute if litigation had been initiated.

This assessment may require consideration of:

• the statutory provisions governing jurisdiction;
• the terms of the contract;
• the place where the cause of action arose;
• the residence or business location of the parties;
• the subject matter of the dispute;
• the value of the claim; and
• any valid exclusive jurisdiction clause.

A careful jurisdictional assessment at the pre-litigation stage helps prevent later difficulties concerning registration, enforcement or challenge of the settlement.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses and Mediation

Commercial agreements often contain clauses selecting courts in a particular city to deal with disputes. Such clauses must be examined while identifying the competent territorial jurisdiction.

Where two or more courts would otherwise have jurisdiction, parties may generally agree that disputes will be dealt with by one of those competent courts. However, a contractual clause cannot ordinarily confer jurisdiction on a court that has no legal connection with the dispute.

A mediation clause may separately select a place for mediation. The two clauses perform different functions.

For example:

• the jurisdiction clause may identify Mumbai courts as competent;
• the mediation clause may provide that mediation will take place in New Delhi; and
• the parties may later agree to conduct sessions online.

In such a situation, the location of mediation does not necessarily alter the jurisdiction clause. The legal forum and the procedural venue must be interpreted separately.

Importance of Correctly Drafting the Mediation Agreement

A well-drafted mediation clause can reduce uncertainty regarding territorial jurisdiction and the place of mediation.

The clause may specify:

• the disputes covered by mediation;
• the applicable mediation law;
• the mediation institution or service provider;
• the method of appointing the mediator;
• the physical or online place of mediation;
• the language of mediation;
• confidentiality obligations;
• allocation of costs; and
• the courts or tribunals having jurisdiction over settlement-related proceedings.

The drafting should avoid using the terms “place”, “venue”, “seat” and “jurisdiction” interchangeably. Although the concept of a juridical seat is well established in arbitration, mediation is a different process. Section 13 creates its own framework based on the competent court or tribunal and the mutually selected place.

Practical Considerations While Selecting the Place

The place of mediation can influence the efficiency and comfort of the process. The parties and mediator may consider several practical factors.

Neutrality

A neutral location may help build confidence where neither party wishes to attend mediation at the other party’s office or home city.

Accessibility

The selected place should be reasonably accessible to the parties, lawyers, experts and mediator.

Privacy

The venue should provide private rooms for joint meetings and confidential separate sessions.

Cost

Travel, accommodation, institutional charges and mediator expenses should be considered before selecting an outside location.

Safety and Comfort

In family, workplace or sensitive personal disputes, the physical environment may affect meaningful participation.

Technology

For online or hybrid mediation, a stable digital platform, secure connectivity and private participation spaces are essential.

These considerations affect the practical venue but do not replace the statutory requirement of identifying the competent legal jurisdiction.

Difference Between Place of Mediation and Seat of Arbitration

The place of mediation should not be treated in the same manner as the seat of arbitration.

In arbitration, the juridical seat has major legal consequences. It generally determines the procedural law governing the arbitration and the courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

Mediation does not involve a private adjudicatory tribunal delivering an award. The mediator facilitates negotiation and cannot impose a decision upon the parties.

Therefore, selecting a place of mediation does not ordinarily produce the same consequences as choosing an arbitral seat. Under Section 13, jurisdiction remains connected with the court or tribunal competent to decide the subject matter, unless another applicable legal provision produces a different result.

Consequences of Ignoring Territorial Jurisdiction

Failure to identify the correct territorial jurisdiction may create avoidable procedural disputes. Possible difficulties include:

• filing registration documents before an incorrect authority;
• initiating enforcement proceedings in an incompetent court;
• bringing a challenge before the wrong forum;
• increased costs and delay;
• objections concerning maintainability; and
• uncertainty in multi-State or multi-party disputes.

However, conducting mediation outside the competent territorial jurisdiction does not by itself invalidate the process when the parties have mutually consented. Section 13 expressly permits such flexibility and protects the settlement through its deeming rule.

The main requirement is to distinguish between the agreed place of meetings and the legally competent forum.

Illustrations

Mediation Conducted Within the Competent Territory

A property dispute concerns immovable property situated in Jaipur, and the competent court is also located in Jaipur. The parties conduct mediation at a recognised centre in Jaipur. Both the physical place and legal territorial jurisdiction coincide.

Mediation Conducted Outside the Competent Territory

A commercial dispute falls within the jurisdiction of a court in Chennai. The parties mutually agree to mediate in Bengaluru. The sessions may validly take place in Bengaluru, but registration, enforcement and challenge remain connected with the competent jurisdiction in Chennai.

Online Mediation Between Parties in Different States

One party is located in Delhi and the other in Kolkata, while the competent court is in Mumbai. The mediation is conducted through video conferencing. For settlement-related legal proceedings, the mediation is deemed to have been undertaken within the competent territorial jurisdiction in Mumbai.

Place Selected Without Mutual Consent

One party proposes to conduct mediation outside the competent territorial jurisdiction, but the other party objects. The outside venue cannot be imposed under Section 13. The ordinary territorial rule continues to govern unless mutual consent is obtained.

Conclusion

Section 13 of the Mediation Act, 2023 creates a balanced framework for territorial jurisdiction and the place of mediation. Mediation must ordinarily be undertaken within the territory of the court or tribunal competent to decide the dispute. 

At the same time, the parties may mutually choose another physical location or online mediation. The selected venue does not alter the competent legal forum. For registration, enforcement and challenge, the mediation remains legally connected with the court or tribunal having jurisdiction over the subject matter.