Authority: High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Order Date: 20 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand (represented by Executive Engineer Ashish Kumar Sinha).
  • Respondent: Ramky Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad.
  • Underlying Contract: Executed on 22 September 2010 for rehabilitation and up‑gradation of the Barhet‑Sahebganj Section of the Govindpur‑Sahebganj Jharkhand State Road Project (Package IV, ICB No.04/2009/Civil Works/Barhait‑Sahebganj Section).
  • Arbitration Clause: Clause 20.6(b)(iii) of the General Clauses of Contract stipulated that arbitration proceedings shall be held at the Conference Building, Mantralaya, Ranchi, and that the language shall be English. The clause referred only to venue, not to the seat of arbitration.
  • Arbitral Tribunal Proceedings: The Tribunal (two arbitrators and a presiding arbitrator) held its first procedural hearing on 22 Sept 2023 (minutes signed 23 Sept 2023) via virtual mode. In Procedural Order No.1, Clause 6 fixed the seat of arbitration at Delhi and stated that the venue would be decided from time to time.
  • Extension Application: Respondent filed an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Delhi High Court seeking an extension of the Tribunal’s mandate. The Delhi High Court, in its order dated 01 Apr 2026, extended the mandate by one year, holding that the seat was undisputedly Delhi and therefore the Court had jurisdiction.
  • Section 16 Challenge: The Road Construction Department filed an application under Section 16 before the Arbitral Tribunal challenging the Delhi seat. The Tribunal rejected the application via Procedural Order No.30 dated 08 May 2026, maintaining the Delhi seat.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.4806 of 2026 in the Jharkhand High Court seeking quashing of Procedural Order No.30 and declaring Ranchi as the seat of arbitration.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioner argued that the agreement did not provide a seat, only a venue, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to fix the seat. Respondent contended that the Delhi seat had been accepted for over two and a half years, that the Delhi High Court’s jurisdictional finding was unchallenged, and that the petition was an attempt to delay proceedings.
  • Statutory Interpretation: The Court examined Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, distinguishing between “place of arbitration” (venue) and “seat of arbitration” (jurisdiction‑determining home). It cited Supreme Court judgments in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (2012) and BBR (India) Private Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2023) to affirm that the seat is static and cannot be altered by subsequent venue changes.
  • Waiver of Objection: The Court invoked Section 4 of the Act, noting that the State was aware of the Delhi seat, continued with the proceedings for more than two and a half years, and therefore waived its right to object. It referenced Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) to support this view.
  • Supreme Court Precedent on Section 16: The Court also referred to Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (2026) stating that a writ court should not delve into the merits of a Section 16 challenge.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the contract only fixed the venue in Ranchi and did not determine the seat of arbitration.
  • The State’s prolonged silence amounted to a waiver of its objection under Section 4, rendering its challenge untenable.
  • The arbitral tribunal’s fixation of Delhi as the seat was upheld as valid and not contrary to the agreement.
  • Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

Topics: Arbitration Seat, Jurisdiction, Waiver of Objection