ORDER :

1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Commercial Court (District Level), Raipur in MJC No.20/2020 whereby, the application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) against the award dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Arbitrator Mr. Amrendra Prasad Choudhary, Ex. CMD, RINL at Delhi, has been dismissed by holding that the Commercial Court is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction to consider the Petition filed by the Petitioner and accordingly returned the original Petition to the Petitioner for instituting the same before the Court having jurisdiction.

3. Shri Majumdar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is not disputed that the contract has been signed at Bilaspur and as per clause-2.0 of the condition of the contract, the work is to be executed in the area required by NTPC-Sipat, District Bilaspur and the earnest money has also been accepted which was payable at Bilaspur, therefore, as per Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996, the subject matter of the arbitration is in the area of Chhattisgarh. He further submits that the seat of arbitration between the parties is clearly at Bilaspur as all the contracts have been executed in the said area as per the contract agreement, therefore, the Commercial Court, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh clearly has jurisdiction for hearing the application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. He placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. M/s Sri Balaji Metals & Minerals in W.P.(227) No.393/2021 and other connected matters dated 17.11.2021.

4. On the other hand, Shri Singh submits that against the order passed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, the remedy lies only under Section 37 of the said Act and the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

5. In reply, Shri Majumdar submits that such question has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of BGS SGS Soma JV vs. NHPC Limited reported in (2020) 4 SCC 234 and the relevant paragraphs i.e. 14, 16 & 20 are as under:-

“14. Interestingly, under the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Order XLIII of the CPC is also mentioned. Order XLIII Rule(1)(a) reads as follows:

“1. Appeal from orders.- An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely-

(a) an order under Rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order VII has been followed;”

This provision is conspicuous by its absence in Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which alone can be looked at for the purpose of filing appeals against orders setting aside, or refusing to set aside awards under Section 34. Also, what is missed by the impugned judgment is the words “under Section 34”. Thus, the refusal to set aside an arbitral award must be under Section 34, i.e., after the grounds set out in Section 34 have been applied to the arbitral award in question, and after the Court has turned down such grounds. Admittedly, on the facts of these cases, there was no adjudication under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 - all that was done was that the Special Commercial Court at Gurugram allowed an application filed under Section 151 read with Order VII Rule 10 CPC, determining that the Special Commercial Court at Gurugram had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the Section 34 application, and therefore, such application would have to be returned to the competent court situate at New Delhi.”

XXXX

“16. Shri Chowdhury also referred to another Delhi High Court judgment reported as Hamanprit Singh Sidhu v. Arcadia Shares & Stock Brokers ( P ) Ltd .,( 2016) 234 DLT 30, in which a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed an application for