Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu
Order Date: 14.08.2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Union of India (through Executive Engineer (c), CPWD Landoi Bridge, Satwari Cantt., Jammu) as petitioner; PNSC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director Shri Purna Nand, as respondent.
- Contract: "Construction of Transit Campus at IIT, Jammu – Additional RCC Retaining Wall and structural steel works of Domes and Deck Bridge" (Agreement No. 01/EE/JMCD/2017-18) awarded to the respondent in 2017.
- Dispute: Respondent invoked arbitration under Clause 25 of the GCC‑2014. The Additional Director General (Jammu), CPWD appointed Shri Akhilesh Kumar as sole arbitrator on 14.03.2023.
- Arbitration Proceedings: First hearing on 13.04.2023 (virtual) to decide procedures under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator directed all future hearings to be virtual, except unavoidable physical hearings.
- Petitioner's Grievances: Alleged that virtual hearings caused technical difficulties, minutes were inaccurately recorded, and the arbitrator unilaterally recorded the petitioner's consent to continue virtually and to fix the seat of arbitration at Delhi without consent.
- Seat of Arbitration Issue: Minutes of 13.04.2023 recorded that, with consent of both parties, the seat was fixed at Delhi, contrary to the petitioner's claim of no such consent. The arbitrator later relied on Section 29‑A of the Act as applicable to Jammu & Kashmir while simultaneously treating Delhi as the seat.
- Mandate Expiry: Arbitrator’s mandate was deemed to have expired on 16.03.2024 under Section 29‑A, but the arbitrator continued, citing extensions agreed on 23.04.2024, extending the mandate to 11.09.2024.
- Respondent’s Position: Asserted that the seat was Delhi by mutual consent, that the arbitrator’s mandate remained valid, and that the petitioner had not raised connectivity issues earlier.
- Submissions: Petitioner's counsel argued fraudulent fixing of Delhi as seat and misrecording of consents; respondent’s counsel maintained the seat was Delhi and the court lacks jurisdiction.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that, since the seat of arbitration was designated as Delhi (as per the procedural minutes), jurisdiction lies with the courts at Delhi.
- Consequently, the High Court declined to entertain the petition for substitution of the arbitrator, deeming it inappropriate to adjudicate the merits without assuming jurisdiction over the seat.
- The petition was returned to the petitioner with directions to present the matter before the competent court having jurisdiction over the Delhi seat of arbitration.
Topics: Arbitration, Jurisdiction