When an arbitrator is designated via statutory notification, the seat of jurisdiction is fixed at the office of that authority; courts at that location have exclusive jurisdiction, and any challenge moved in a court lacking such territorial jurisdiction is null and void, regardless of party consent.

JUDGMENT

1. This arbitration appeal under section 37(1)(C) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed against the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by Fourth District Judge, Shivpuri in MJC AV No.35/2018, by which the application filed under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been allowed, and the award dated 28.08.2017 passed by Arbitrator cum Divisional Commissioner, Division, Gwalior in case No.193/2015-16/jk-jk-ekxZ has been set aside.

2. Challenging the award passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that in an identical case, this Court by judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed in A.A. No.37/2022 [The National Highways Authority of India (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) Govt. of India Vs. Sanjay Kumar and Others], it was held that since the Divisional Commissioner, Division Gwalior was the Arbitrator, therefore, the Principal Court of original jurisdiction would be District Court, Gwalior, and not District Court, Shivpuri, and accordingly, the order passed by the District Court, Shivpuri, was set aside by holding that the said Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is further submitted that by order dated 10.09.2025 passed in RP No.1545/2025 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. National Highways Authority of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government of India Thr and Others), this Court had modified the judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed in A.A. No. 37/2022 and directed the trial Court to return the application filed by the applicant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act so as to enable him to approach the appropriate forum, subject to principles of limitation. It is further submitted that this case is duly covered by the judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed by this Court in A.A. No.37/2022 as well as the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in R.P. No.1545/2025.

3. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. By referring to judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) versus Pam Development Pvt. Ltd. decided on 18.02.2014 in Civil Appeal No.5618/2006, it is submitted that once the respondents had submitted to the jurisdiction of District Court Shivpuri without any demur and objection, then they cannot raise the question of lack of jurisdiction at a later stage.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

5. In the case of Pam Development Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the question before the Court was as to whether the party aggrieved by the award passed by the arbitrator can challenge jurisdiction of Arbitrator specifically when no objection was ever raised by the said aggrieved party. In nutshell, the question before the Supreme Court in the case of Pam Development Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) was with regard to submission to the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal. Here the case is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court before whom an application under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed. The law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Pam Development Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is distinguishable on account of aforesaid aspect.

6. This Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar & Ors. (supra) passed in A.A. No.37/2022 had passed the following judgment :

“This appeal, under Section 37(1)(C) of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2021 passed b