1. Appeal against High Court order dismissing Section 34 arbitration petition as non-maintainable and time-barred. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/S GSCO (Gurmeet Singh And Company) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21375 of 2025)
Decided On : 23-09-2026
Important Points
The court distinguished between 'seat' and 'venue' of arbitration, ruling that a venue chosen for convenience does not establish supervisory jurisdiction. Additionally, the physical location of a High Court appointing an arbitrator does not automatically designate that city as the juridical seat of arbitration.
Subject
Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction and Limitation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 11(6) and 42 - Jurisdiction and Limitation - Petition under Section 34 filed before the District Court - Dispute whether the court had territorial jurisdiction and whether the petition was within the limitation period - Limitation period starts from the date of the award; if filed within three months as prescribed under Section 34(3), it cannot be termed as time-barred - Distinguish between ‘Seat’ and ‘Venue’ of arbitration; ‘Seat’ determines the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, while ‘Venue’ is merely the physical location where hearings are held - Mere conduct of proceedings at a certain location for the convenience of the arbitrator does not automatically make that location the juridical seat of arbitration (Paras 19, 27, 28)
(B) Jurisdiction - Effect of appointment of arbitrator by High Court - The fact that a High Court referred the parties to arbitration does not mean the city where the High Court is situated automatically becomes the seat of arbitration - A High Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire State and subsequent applications under Part I of the Act can be filed before any competent court within the state, unless a specific seat is designated by agreement or order (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
A contract for hiring machinery and transportation of materials was executed, though it lacked an arbitration clause. After the completion of work, disputes arose, and a sole arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. The arbitrator passed an award in favor of the respondent. The appellants challenged the award by filing petitions under Section 34 before the District Court in the district where the work was executed. The respondent objected to the maintainability of these petitions on the grounds of limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction, claiming the city where the proceedings were held was the seat of arbitration. The High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition, holding the Section 34 petitions non-maintainable.
Findings of Court:
The petitions under Section 34 were filed within the three-month period from the date of the award and were therefore not barred by limitation. Regarding jurisdiction, the city where the proceedings were conducted was merely the venue for convenience and not the juridical seat. Since the contract provided that disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of the court where the work was executed, the District Court in that specific district had the jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the petitions under Section 34 were barred by limitation and whether the court in the district where the work was executed had jurisdiction, or if the venue of the proceedings constituted the juridical seat of arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that there is a fundamental distinction between 'seat' and 'venue' of arbitration. Venue denotes the physical location of hearings and does not bestow supervisory jurisdiction unless expressly designated as the seat by parties or by court order. Moreover, the mere fact that a High Court appoints an arbitrator does not restrict jurisdiction to the city where the High Court is located; jurisdiction extends across the state's competent courts unless a seat is specifically determined.
Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the petition under Section 34 is restored to the file of the District Judge.
(B) Jurisdiction - Effect of appointment of arbitrator by High Court - The fact that a High Court referred the parties to arbitration does not mean the city where the High Court is situated automatically becomes the seat of arbitration - A High Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire State and subsequent applications under Part I of the Act can be filed before any competent court within the state, unless a specific seat is designated by agreement or order (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
A contract for hiring machinery and transportation of materials was executed, though it lacked an arbitration clause. After the completion of work, disputes arose, and a sole arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. The arbitrator passed an award in favor of the respondent. The appellants challenged the award by filing petitions under Section 34 before the District Court in the district where the work was executed. The respondent objected to the maintainability of these petitions on the grounds of limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction, claiming the city where the proceedings were held was the seat of arbitration. The High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition, holding the Section 34 petitions non-maintainable.
Findings of Court:
The petitions under Section 34 were filed within the three-month period from the date of the award and were therefore not barred by limitation. Regarding jurisdiction, the city where the proceedings were conducted was merely the venue for convenience and not the juridical seat. Since the contract provided that disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of the court where the work was executed, the District Court in that specific district had the jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the petitions under Section 34 were barred by limitation and whether the court in the district where the work was executed had jurisdiction, or if the venue of the proceedings constituted the juridical seat of arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that there is a fundamental distinction between 'seat' and 'venue' of arbitration. Venue denotes the physical location of hearings and does not bestow supervisory jurisdiction unless expressly designated as the seat by parties or by court order. Moreover, the mere fact that a High Court appoints an arbitrator does not restrict jurisdiction to the city where the High Court is located; jurisdiction extends across the state's competent courts unless a seat is specifically determined.
Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the petition under Section 34 is restored to the file of the District Judge.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Venkataramani, A.G. Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Varun, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Adv. Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Raja Kumar Pati, Adv. Mr. Shreyan Das, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv. Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Venkataramani, A.G. Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Varun, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Adv. Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Raja Kumar Pati, Adv. Mr. Shreyan Das, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv. Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued jurisdiction at work execution place; Respondent argued seat at Cuttack via Section 42. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
3. High Court erred equating venue with seat; no designated seat in contract or appointment order. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Mere conduct at a venue does not determine juridical seat; courts at work-execution place have jurisdiction absent contrary agreement. (Para 28 , 31 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; Section 34 petition restored for adjudication on merits. (Para 32 )
6. What determines the juridical 'seat' of arbitration in the absence of an express designation?
Mere conduct of proceedings at a venue does not determine the juridical seat; express designation or party agreement is required. (Para 28 , 29 )
7. Does Section 42 of the Arbitration Act bar a Section 34 petition filed in a court other than where the Section 11 petition was filed?
Yes, if the first application was made to a court having jurisdiction; but here no seat was designated at Cuttack, so Section 42 did not apply. (Para 15 , 16 , 29 )
8. Can a High Court's location as seat dictate jurisdiction of lower courts within the state for arbitration petitions?
No; High Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire state; lower courts within that jurisdiction are competent absent contrary agreement. (Para 30 , 31 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Subject appeal impugns judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 12707 of 2024, whereby the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby held that the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961[‘Act’ for short] filed by the Appellants was not maintainable. The High Court has held that the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act before the Court of the District Judge, Sundargarh, was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and also being time barred.
3. On 07.11.2012, a tender was issued by the Appellants for hiring of HEMM (Shovel, Drill, Dozer etc.) for transfer and transportation of materials in various strata including drilling, excavation, dumping spreading dozing and other allied works in specified areas of dumping as per the instructions of project officer/management of Kulda OCP, Basundhara – Garjanbahal areas of MCL at Sundargarh.
4. Respondent was the successful bidder, and accordingly, a contract was executed between the parties. It is an admitted position that the agreement did not contain any arbitration clause.
5. On 03.07.2016, a completion certificate was issued by the Project Officer of the Appellants, acknowledging the competition of the assigned scope of work on 29.06.2016. However, during and after the execution of the work, certain disputes arose between the parties in relation to various claims under the contract. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C). Nos. 19909 of 2016, 473 of 2017 and 474 of 2017.
6. By a common order dated 25.03.2019, the Hon’ble High Court at Cuttack appointed Mr. Justice M.M. Das (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Relevant portion of the common order is reproduced herein:
- “by way of this writ petition, the petitioner (GSCO in that case) has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties (MCL in that case) to release the withheld amount……………….For the record, it seems that this matter relates to interpretation of the condition of the contract. Appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the Arbitrator. Learned counsels for the parties on mutual consent submit that this matter may be referred to the Arbitrator…..”
7. Being aggrieved by the appointment, Respondent challenged the appointment before this Court in SLP (C) No. 9676 of 2019, SLP (C) No.11969 of 2019 and SLP (C) No.11551 of 2019. This Court, vide orders dated 22.04.2019 and 01.07.2019 held that:
- “the main contention of the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner (respondent herein) is that the Counsel appeared before the High Court has not consented with the order which was passed by the said Court agreeing for arbitration. We are not inclined to hear any other contention raised…petitioner (respondent herein) is at liberty to approach the High Court for filing of Review Petition bringing it to the notice of the High Court.”
8. Respondent filed two Review Petitions before the High Court, being RVWPET No. 145 of 2019 (arising out of W.P.(C) No. 19909 of 2016) and RVWPET No. 223 of 2019 (arising out of W.P.(C) No. 473 of 2017) and a Recall Petition bearing I.A. No. 14601 of 2019 (arising out of W.P.(C) No. 474 of 2017) before the High Court to recall the order dated 25.03.2019. The High Court dismissed both the Review Petitions as withdrawn by orders dated 19.03.2021 and 18.06.2021. The Recall Petition was also dismissed as withdrawn on 15.03.2021.
9. Thereafter, the arbitration proceedings were commenced by the Arbitrator and the proceedings were held at Cuttack. The Sole Arbitrator, on 25.10.2021, passed a common Arbitral Award in favour of the Respondent.
10. Appellants filed 3 separate petitions under Section 34 of the Act on 08.12.2021 being Arbitration Case Nos. 05, 06 and 07 of
