Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s GSCO (Gurmeet Singh and Company) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

2026 INSC 1038 · Civil Appeal of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 21375 of 2025) · Decided 23 September 2026

Bench: Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. (Judgment by Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.)
Impugned order: Judgment dated 20.06.2025 of the High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 12707 of 2024, holding the appellants’ Section 34 petitions before the District Judge, Sundargarh not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred
Parties: Appellants: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL), the employer. Respondent: GSCO, the contractor in whose favour the arbitral award was made
Statutes: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Ss. 2(1)(e), 11(6), 34, 34(3) and 42; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S. 151; Constitution of India, Arts. 226 and 227
Cases distinguished: Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552; Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678; BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234
Counsel: The Attorney General for India for the appellants; Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Senior Advocate, for the respondent
Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside; the Section 34 petitions restored to the file of the District Judge, Sundargarh, to be decided expeditiously

Catchwords

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 2(1)(e), 11(6), 34 and 42 — Petition to set aside arbitral award — Territorial jurisdiction — Arbitrator appointed by the High Court of Orissa (at Cuttack) under S. 11(6) on consent of parties; no arbitration clause in the contract — Order of reference silent on seat and venue — Sittings held at Cuttack for the arbitrator’s convenience — Contract and tender conferring jurisdiction on the District Court where the work was executed (Sundargarh) — Seat and venue distinguished — Held, Cuttack was only the venue, not the seat; the District Judge, Sundargarh had jurisdiction. — A High Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire State, so every Commercial Court, or District Court where no Commercial Court is set up, within its territory can entertain a S. 34 petition, unless the parties agree otherwise or the appointment order fixes a seat — Limitation — S. 34(3) — Petition filed within three months of the award — Finding of delay contrary to the record.

Short Note

The High Court of Orissa, sitting at Cuttack, referred the parties’ contract disputes to a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) on consent. The contract had no arbitration clause, and the order of reference named neither a seat nor a venue. The arbitrator held sittings at Cuttack and made the award there. MCL challenged the award under Section 34 before the District Judge, Sundargarh, where the work had been executed. The High Court held that Cuttack was the seat, so only Cuttack courts could hear the challenge, and that the petition was also time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed both findings. The petitions were filed within three months, as the respondent conceded. Holding sittings at a place for convenience makes it the venue, not the seat. Nor does the location of the High Court that appointed the arbitrator decide the seat: a High Court’s jurisdiction covers the whole State. The tender and contract gave jurisdiction to the District Court where the work was done, and Sundargarh had no Commercial Court, so the District Judge, Sundargarh was the proper court. The Section 34 petitions were restored there.

Headnote

The Section 34 petitions were within time. The common award was made on 25.10.2021 and the Section 34 petitions were filed on 08.12.2021, well within the three months prescribed by Section 34(3). The High Court’s finding that they were barred by limitation was contrary to the admitted facts, and counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that it was erroneous. [Paras 19–21]
The contract gave jurisdiction to the court where the work was executed. Clause 12 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender provided that, for parties other than Government agencies, redress may be sought in the court within whose jurisdiction the work is executed. Clause 40 of the e-Tender Notice dated 07.11.2012 made disputes arising out of the tender and the resulting contract subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court where the work is executed. The work was admittedly executed in Sundargarh district, where the cause of action substantially arose. [Paras 22–25]
No Commercial Court for Sundargarh, so the District Judge was the court. The Circular dated 13.11.2020 of the Law Department, State of Odisha, issued in consultation with the High Court, demarcates the territorial jurisdiction of Commercial Courts and assigned none to Sundargarh district. It was not the respondent’s case that the Commercial Court at Cuttack had jurisdiction over Sundargarh. The Section 34 petitions could therefore be presented only before the District Judge, Sundargarh. [Para 25]
Seat and venue are different; sittings held at a place for convenience do not make it the seat. The order of 25.03.2019 referring the disputes to the arbitrator specified no seat or venue, and the parties never agreed that Cuttack would be the seat. The proceedings were held at Cuttack only for the arbitrator’s convenience, and nothing to the contrary was shown. The seat determines which courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration; the venue is merely the place where sittings are held. Mere conduct of the proceedings at a place cannot by itself determine the juridical seat. Absent an express designation of Cuttack as the seat, the High Court erred in treating the venue as the seat. [Paras 26–28]
BALCO, Indus Mobile and BGS SGS Soma distinguished. Those decisions do not help the respondent, because here no seat was expressly designated by the parties or consented to by them. Cuttack was only the venue, chosen for administrative convenience. [Para 29]
The appointing High Court’s location does not fix the seat. The High Court also erred in treating Cuttack as the seat because the reference was made by the High Court, which sits at Cuttack. That does not confer jurisdiction on the District or Commercial Courts at Cuttack, and the High Court wrongly confined its own jurisdiction to the district in which it is physically situated. A High Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire State. Every Commercial Court within its territory, or the District Court where no Commercial Court has been set up, has jurisdiction to entertain a Section 34 petition. That is so unless the parties have agreed otherwise, or the appointment order or another direction of the court specifically determines a seat. [Paras 30–31]

Facts in Brief

07.11.2012MCL issued a tender for hiring heavy earth-moving machinery (shovel, drill, dozer) for work at the Kulda Open Cast Project, Basundhara–Garjanbahal areas, Sundargarh. GSCO was the successful bidder; the contract had no arbitration clause.
03.07.2016Completion certificate issued, acknowledging completion of the work on 29.06.2016. Disputes on claims under the contract followed.
2016–2017GSCO filed W.P.(C) Nos. 19909 of 2016, 473 of 2017 and 474 of 2017 in the High Court of Orissa.
25.03.2019By a common order, the High Court, recording the consent of counsel, appointed Mr. Justice M.M. Das (Retd.) as sole arbitrator under S. 11(6).
2019–2021GSCO’s SLPs against the appointment, on the ground that its counsel had not consented, were disposed of with liberty to seek review. Its review and recall petitions in the High Court were later withdrawn.
25.10.2021Common award in GSCO’s favour, after proceedings held at Cuttack.
08.12.2021MCL filed Arbitration Case Nos. 05, 06 and 07 of 2021 under S. 34 before the District Court, Sundargarh.
27.09.2022GSCO applied under S. 151 CPC to reject the petitions as time-barred and for want of territorial jurisdiction (seat at Cuttack).
06.03.2024District Judge dismissed GSCO’s application; GSCO filed W.P.(C) No. 12707 of 2024.
20.06.2025High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that Cuttack was the seat and that, under S. 42, the court at Cuttack alone had jurisdiction because the S. 11(6) application had been made there; it also held the petitions time-barred.

Contentions

Appellants (MCL)

The award was dated 25.10.2021 and the Section 34 petitions were filed on 08.12.2021, within the period in Section 34(3). The contract was for works at Sundargarh and itself contemplated the jurisdiction of the court where the work was executed. The cause of action substantially arose there, so the court at Sundargarh was the “Court” under Section 2(1)(e). The sittings were held at Cuttack only for the arbitrator’s convenience.

Respondent (GSCO)

Before the High Court: the seat was Cuttack, where the arbitrator was appointed and the proceedings were held, so Cuttack courts alone had jurisdiction, and Section 42 required all later applications to be made in the court where the Section 11(6) application was filed. Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel conceded that the finding on limitation was erroneous.

Order

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20.06.2025, holding the appellants’ Section 34 petitions before the District Judge, Sundargarh not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred, is set aside. The Section 34 petitions are restored to the file of the District Judge, Sundargarh, who shall decide them in accordance with law, expeditiously. [Para 32]

Prepared by LAW LIBRARY. Online. This summary is for quick reference only. It is not a substitute for the full text of the judgment, which should be read before relying on it.