A significant recent development in the Indian arbitration regime is the introduction of the concept of 'seat' in India seated arbitration. While the Indian arbitration regime endorsed this concept for international commercial arbitration seated outside India in 1996, it had a limited application for domestic arbitration and India seated international commercial arbitration. In India, for arbitration matters, internal allocation of jurisdiction was to be governed by the rules of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. These rules did not allow parties the freedom to choose an unconnected forum to govern arbitration proceedings. The Supreme Court of India has recently introduced a change in the above rules. Under this changed rule, party autonomy in choosing their seat for arbitration has allowed the contracting parties to confer exclusive jurisdiction on an unconnected forum in the country although appearing to be a progressive move, this recent development initiated by the Supreme Court, this article argues, is a cause of concern for the Indian arbitration regime. Instead of making the arbitration process more efficient, it introduces a new avenue of litigation and innumerable possibilities of increased court intervention in arbitration proceedings. This recent development needs reconsideration since the concept of the seat can have a very limited value for Indian arbitration. Choice of the seat does not entail the choice of a legal system given the fact that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a central legislation, which is applicable uniformly to all the states in the country. It offers only one benefit- the possibility to choose the physical location of the courts where arbitration proceedings can be brought.