In statutory arbitration, where the seat or venue is not expressly defined, the location where arbitral proceedings are conducted and the award is signed becomes the juridical seat of arbitration, conferring exclusive territorial jurisdiction upon the courts of that place for challenges under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2, 20, 31(4) and 34 - Statutory arbitration - Determination of territorial jurisdiction for filing objections under Section 34 of the Act - Held, where venue of arbitration is designated and there is no contrary indicia, stated venue is the juridical seat - Conduct of parties, including holding of proceedings and signing of award at a particular place, identifies the juridical seat of arbitration. (Paras 5, 21, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40)

(B) Arbitration - Seat and Venue - Distinction between 'seat' and 'venue' - In absence of express agreement on seat in statutory arbitration, place where arbitral proceedings were held with parties' participation and where award was passed and signed attains status of 'seat' of arbitration. (Paras 11, 34, 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
Large number of revision petitions arose from land acquisition disputes under statutory arbitration provisions. Awards were passed by a designated official who conducted all hearings and executed the final award at a specific location. Objections were subsequently filed by both parties in different districts. Some lower courts returned the objections citing lack of territorial jurisdiction based on the location of the seat, while others entertained them, leading to contradictory orders.

Findings of Court:
The Court analyzed that the statutory appointment of an official as an arbitrator does not waive the principles governing the seat of arbitration. Since the proceedings were physically conducted and the awards were signed at a particular location without any contrary agreement, that location becomes the juridical seat. Consequently, only courts within the jurisdiction of that seat are competent to entertain objections under Section 34.

Issues: The central issue was determining the jurisdictional seat for challenging arbitral awards in statutory arbitration cases where the statute does not explicitly define the seat or venue.

Ratio Decidendi: In statutory arbitration, where the governing statute and the appointing order remain silent on the seat or venue, the conduct of the parties—specifically the place where hearings were held and the award was signed—determines the juridical seat. The chosen venue effectively functions as the seat for the purposes of exclusive judicial review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside directing the filing of objections before the appropriate court at the jurisdictional seat.

Table of Content
1. nature of disputes regarding territorial jurisdiction in statutory arbitrations under the national highways act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. petitioner's contention: statutory arbitration venue dictates the seat of arbitration for filing challenges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. respondent's contention: venue is not seat; practical considerations and land location confer jurisdiction to local courts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. review of prior precedent and supreme court observations regarding jurisdictional seat and territoriality. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. analysis of the 'juridical seat' concept where venue is fixed by conduct in statutory arbitrations. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. final ruling: territorial jurisdiction for section 34 challenges is exclusively at the seat where proceedings were conducted. (Para 44 , 45 , 46)

1. This is a bunch of 95 Civil Revision Petitions which have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking indulgence of this Court on the issue of jurisdiction of the Court to hear the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The present bunch of cases is bifurcated into two categories i.e. restored objections under Section 34 of the Act and fresh objections under Section 34 of the Act, as per the prescribed Schedule-‘A’, which is attached at the foot of the judgment.

3. All these cases are taken up together for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties since the issue of law involved is the same.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.3884 of 2023, titled Yashpreet Singh versus Union of India and others.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The issue of law involved in the present bunch of cases is as under:-

“In the matters concerning statutory arbitration under the provisions of Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the National Highways Act, 1956, what will be the seat of arbitration for the purpose of entertaining the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

6. The brief facts of the present set of cases are that the land of the landlosers was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and thereafter, an award was passed by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA). After the passing of the CALA award, a reference was made to the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the purpose of passing an award. In all the cases, an award has been passed by the learned Arbitrator, who is the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot. However, the property which is the subject matter of acquisition is situated at Bathinda. The State of Punjab has five Divisions i.e. Patiala, Faridkot, Rupnagar, Jalandhar and Ferozepur and each Division comprises of different Districts. The subject matter of the present petitions pertains only to Faridkot Division, which comprises of three Districts i.e. Bathinda, Faridkot and Mansa.

7. The Central Government appointed the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot as Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as per order No.RW/NH-37014/05/2012-NHDP-IVA dated 17.08.2015 for revenue districts of Bathinda and Faridkot. Vide Annexure P-4, the award was passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot on 18.01.2019 and signed by him at Faridkot on the same date and thereafter, in the present cases, objections were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at District Bathinda. In 83 cases out of the present bunch of cases, the objections were returned by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda on different dates on the ground that the award was passed at Faridkot and while referring to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Additional Di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82929

Cases Referred (4)