Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: September 23, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd (MCL) & others; Respondent – M/S GSCO (Gurmeet Singh and Company) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
  • Background: On 07‑11‑2012 MCL issued a tender for hiring HEMM (shovel, drill, dozer, etc.) for work at Kulda Open Cast Project (OCP), Basundhara‑Garjanbahal, Sundargarh. GSCO was the successful bidder and a contract was executed, which expressly omitted any arbitration clause.
  • Work Completion: A completion certificate was issued on 03‑07‑2016 confirming completion of the scope on 29‑06‑2016. Subsequent disputes over contract claims led GSCO to approach the Orissa High Court (Cuttack) in W.P.(C) Nos. 19909/2016, 473/2017 and 474/2017.
  • Arbitration Appointment: By a common order dated 25‑03‑2019, the High Court appointed Mr. Justice M.M. Das (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The order suggested the parties approach the arbitrator for dispute resolution.
  • Challenge to Appointment: GSCO challenged the appointment before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 9676/2019, 11969/2019 and 11551/2019. The Supreme Court, in orders dated 22‑04‑2019 and 01‑07‑2019, directed GSCO to seek a review before the High Court.
  • Review & Recall: GSCO filed Review Petitions (RVWPET No. 145/2019 and RVWPET No. 223/2019) and a Recall Petition (I.A. No. 14601/2019) before the High Court. All were dismissed as withdrawn on 19‑03‑2021, 18‑06‑2021 and 15‑03‑2021 respectively.
  • Arbitral Award: The Sole Arbitrator conducted proceedings in Cuttack and on 25‑10‑2021 issued a common award in favour of GSCO.
  • Section 34 Petitions: MCL filed three separate petitions under Section 34 of the Act (Arbitration Cases Nos. 05, 06, 07 of 2021) on 08‑12‑2021 in the District Court, Sundargarh, seeking to set aside the award.
  • Respondent’s Preliminary Objections: On 27‑09‑2022 GSCO filed a Miscellaneous Application under Section 151 CPC, arguing (a) the Section 34 petitions were time‑barred under Section 34(3) and (b) the District Judge, Sundargarh lacked territorial jurisdiction because the seat of arbitration was Cuttack.
  • District Court Dismissal: The District Judge rejected these objections on 06‑03‑2024, allowing the Section 34 petitions to proceed, prompting GSCO to file a writ petition before the Orissa High Court.
  • High Court Order (20‑06‑2025): The High Court allowed GSCO’s writ petition, holding the Section 34 petitions non‑maintainable for lack of jurisdiction (seat of arbitration deemed Cuttack) and for being filed beyond the limitation period.
  • Legal Reasoning of High Court: It relied on Section 42 of the Act, stating that once a party approaches a court for any Part I application, all subsequent applications must be filed in the same court. Since the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court at Cuttack, the High Court concluded exclusive jurisdiction lay with Cuttack courts.
  • Limitation Finding: The High Court observed the arbitral award was received long before the Section 34 petitions were filed; even allowing a 30‑day condonable period, the petitions exceeded the three‑month limit.
  • Appellants’ Submissions before Supreme Court:
  • Learned Attorney General argued the petitions were filed within the statutory period (award dated 25‑10‑2021; petitions filed 08‑12‑2021).
  • Senior Counsel Ashok Panigrahi for GSCO conceded the limitation finding was erroneous.
  • The appellant contended jurisdiction lay with Sundargarh because the contract’s Clause 12 and Clause 40 stipulated disputes be resolved in the court having jurisdiction over the work site, i.e., the District Court where the work was executed.
  • A circular dated 13‑11‑2020 from the Odisha Law Department (consulted with the High Court) showed no Commercial Court was assigned to Sundargarh, and Cuttack’s Commercial Court did not have jurisdiction over Sundargarh matters.
  • The appellant emphasized that the High Court’s order of 25‑03‑2019 did not designate Cuttack as the “seat” of arbitration; it was merely the venue for convenience.
  • The distinction between “seat” (determining supervisory jurisdiction) and “venue” (physical location of hearings) was highlighted, citing precedents (BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Indus Mobile Distribution, Datawind Innovations, BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC).
  • Supreme Court Holding: The Supreme Court found the High Court erred on both jurisdiction and limitation grounds, stating that:
  • The seat of arbitration was not expressly designated as Cuttack; therefore, jurisdiction rests with the district where the work was executed, i.e., Sundargarh.
  • Section 42 does not bar filing the Section 34 petition in Sundargarh because the High Court’s appointment order did not fix a seat.
  • The petition was filed within the statutory period, contrary to the High Court’s conclusion.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 20‑06‑2025.
  • The Section 34 petitions filed by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd are restored to the file of the District Judge, Sundargarh, which shall decide them expeditiously in accordance with law.

Topics: Arbitration Jurisdiction, Section 34 Petition