* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR + WRIT PETITION NO.30363 OF 2025

ORDER:

% Dated 20.11.2025 # Between:

NMDC Steel Limited Petitioner VERSUS Danieli and C.Officine Meccaniche SpA and others Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kopal Sharaff, learned counsel for the petitioner ^ Counsel for respondents : Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Rambabu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred : 1. 2025 INSC 26

2. (2022) 1 SCC 75

3. (2020) 17 SCC 93

4. (2020) 15 SCC 706

5. (2024)SCC OnLine Del 5161

6. W.P.(C) 13833/2024, CM APPL. 57948-57949/2024

7. (2012) 9 SCC 552

8. (2014) 5 SCC 1

9. (2020) 4 SCC 234 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30363 OF 2025 Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kopal Sharaff, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Rambabu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

ORDER:(Per The Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Procedural Order No.15 dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as being perverse and in contravention of the principles of natural justice and equal treatment of parties under the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the

1996 Act’) and the ICC Rules.

2. By the said impugned Procedural Order, the venue of the Closing Hearing in the Arbitration was shifted from Delhi to London, UK.

3. The petitioner prays for restoration of the venue to a location in Hyderabad. The petitioner also prays for an interim order for stay of the Arbitration Proceedings pending before the Arbitral Tribunal in ICC.

4. The petitioner is a respondent in an International Arbitration between a foreign party and its Indian counterpart and another party based in Mumbai (3 claimants). Hyderabad, India, is designated as the venue of the Arbitral Proceedings.

5. The Arbitration Agreement is inserted in a Contract dated 24.08.2012 and envisages Arbitration with a foreign contractor of a contract value of more than Rs.20 crores governed by the Rules of Arbitration of International Chamber of Commerce (‘ICC Rules’), Paris.

6. The Court granted ex parte ad interim protection to the petitioner on 07.10.2025 directing the Arbitral Tribunal not to proceed in terms of an email dated 05.10.2025 whereby the petitioner was asked to confirm the bookings at IDRC, London by 6:00 PM on that date. The Court made it clear that the interim order would remain for a limited period of time until the respondents entered appearance and that the parties would be at liberty of exploring Hyderabad or New Delhi as alternative venues for the Closing Hearing. The Court further made it clear that it had not granted the prayer for stay of Arbitration.

7. The respondents entered appearance pursuant to notice and Senior Counsel was heard on several occasions thereafter. The respondents are the claimants in the Arbitration.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has urged that the Writ Petition is misconceived being in violation of the settled law with regard to the remedy provided to a party to an Arbitration to approach the Courts. Senior Counsel submits that the impugned Procedural Order does not suffer from perversity and is in consonance with the terms of reference and the ICC Arbitration Rules which confers authority on the Arbitral Tribunal to decide on an appropriate location. It is further argued that the writ petitioner did not object to the International Disputes Resolution Centre (IDRC), London, in the meeting held on

15.09.2025 culminating in the impugned Procedural Order No.15.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to sustain the interim order on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal did not have