The designated seat of arbitration establishes exclusive jurisdiction for related applications, affirming that the Commercial Court in Ranchi has jurisdiction over Section 34 applications.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suvendu Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dated 30.11.2023, contained in Annexure-4 of the petition passed in Commercial Arbitration Case No.13 of 2023 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III cum Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi, by which, the learned Commercial Court, Ranchi has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act, 1996”) on the ground that since in the present case, the learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court, therefore, the learned Commercial Court, Ranchi does not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the application for setting aside the award. The further prayer is made to hold and declare that in the present case, in light of the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the contract entered into between the parties and the clear intention of the parties to subject the arbitration proceedings to the courts in Ranchi, only the courts in Ranchi, Jharkhand shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application arising out of and in connection with the instant arbitration proceedings. The prayer is also made to stay the further proceedings in connection with Execution Case No.186 of 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Commercial Court, Cuttack, during pendency of this petition.

3. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, operating under the aegis of Ministry of Steel, Government of India and is engaged in the business of providing consultancy and engineering services. He submitted that the opposite party is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, construction and civil/mechanical engineering. He further submitted that certain disputes had arisen between the petitioner and opposite party with regard to the contract that was entered into between the parties.

4. He then submitted that a notice inviting tender was floated by the petitioner bearing Invitation to Tender No.11.41.A22P/ERN-R/Pkg No. SE752/047 dated 09.10.2009 for execution of works pertaining to erection, testing and commissioning of Mechanical Plant and Equipment, Refractory, Building and Technological Structures, Piping etc. including unloading, storage, transportation of material at site and supply of auxiliary materials and CGI Sheeting required for 7M tall new Coke Oven Battery No.6 at Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela as per Technical Specifications. He submitted that the opposite party formed a consortium with one M/s Rosy Enterprises and submitted its bid before the concerned authorities of the petitioner and after due process of completing the tendering, the work order was placed upon the Consortium on 14.01.2010. The work order was issued in the nature of item rate contract and the tentative quantities were furnished in the tender document itself. He also submitted that the opposite party furnished erection rates of their own in their offer against those quantities. He submitted that as per the agreed terms of the tender, the work front was to be made available to the opposite party progressively for completion of erection work, during the currency of the said work order. He then submitted that as per Clause 4.0 of the work order, the completion schedule for works under the tender was based on fulfillment of different milestones and starting date was to commence only after handing over of Nozzle Deck to the contractor i.e. the consortium. He submitted that however in the midst of process of completion of the work, the dispute arose between