217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-14369-2018 Date of decision: 11.02.2026 M/S HARMILAP HOTELS PVT. LTD.

...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS M/S BLUE AGAVE CONCEPTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, in Arbitration RBT No.23 of 2018, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were returned for want of jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Act challenging the award dated 29.11.2017, which has been passed against it. He further submitted that the aforesaid objections were filed on 16.12.2017 and upon filing the same, the respondents moved an application before the learned Court at Panipat raising the issue of territorial jurisdiction in view of the order dated 28.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court under Section 11 of the Act, whereby it was observed that although the parties had agreed to have the Arbitrator appointed at Panipat but in view of the non-availability of retired High Court Judges at Panipat, an Arbitrator was appointed at Chandigarh. He further submitted that there is a specific arbitration clause in the agreement attached with the present petition as Annexure P-2, which expressly provides that the seat of arbitration shall be at Panipat and the said agreement was mutually entered into between the parties and is binding upon them. He further submitted that by way of the aforesaid impugned order, the application filed the respondents was allowed and the objection petition under Section 34 of the Act was returned to the petitioner so that the same can be filed before the Courts at Chandigarh because as per the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court under Section 11 of the Act vide Annexure P-3, the Arbitrator was appointed at Chandigarh. He also submitted that there is no doubt that the learned Arbitrator passed the award at Chandigarh but that at the most can be construed to be the venue and not the seat of arbitration and primacy has to be given to the mutual agreement entered into between the parties since party autonomy and the express agreement between the parties with regard to the seat of arbitration has to be given priority unless there is an express agreement to the contrary later on, which is absent in the present case.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the arbitral award was passed in the year 2017 and more than eight years have elapsed that the entire process has been stalled. He further submitted that considering the fact that even the execution in favour of the respondents could not be proceeded with because of the interim order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.01.2019, he has instructions to state that respondent No.1 has no objection in case objections under Section 34 of the Act are heard by the learned Court at Panipat instead of Chandigarh and also has no objection in case the aforesaid impugned order (Annexure P-1) is set aside. He also submitted that directions may be issued to the learned Court at Panipat to decide the objections under Section 34 of the Act within a specified time frame.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The issue involved in the present case is pertaining to jurisdiction for filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act. A perusal of the agreement (Annexure P-2) would clearly show that the seat of arbitration, as agreed between the parties, is