A thumb-rule for drafting any arbitration clause is to mention the seat of arbitration in the clearest fashion possible. When this thumb-rule is breached, the burden of determining or discerning a seat befalls an arbiter, be it a court or a tribunal. This paper aims to explain the ramifications of such an exercise by analysing English and Indian jurisprudence on the discernment of seat in such ‘seatless’ clauses. It demonstrates the internal conflicts within the decisions in each of these jurisdictions, attributing the conflicts in England to a ‘London bias’ and the conflicts in India to the perversity of the crude approaches taken by the Indian courts., The paper proposes a 10-part test that can function as a basic framework for the resolution of such conflicts in the future regarding discernment of ‘seat’. The paper also examines the utility of this test against the English and Indian judgments already discussed.