TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Constitution of India and thereby held that the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Act] filed by the Appellants was not maintainable. The High Court has held that the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act before the Court of the District Judge, Sundargarh, was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and also being time barred. 3. On 07.11.2012, a tender was issued by the Appellants for hiring of HEMM (Shovel, Drill, Dozer etc.) for transfer and transportation of materials in various strata including drilling, excavation, dumping spreading dozing and other allied works in specified areas of dumping as per the instructions of project officer/management of Kulda OCP, Basundhara - Garjanba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged the appointment before this Court in SLP (C) No. 9676 of 2019, SLP (C) No.11969 of 2019 and SLP (C) No.11551 of 2019. This Court, vide orders dated 22.04.2019 and 01.07.2019 held that: "the main contention of the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner (respondent herein) is that the Counsel appeared before the High Court has not consented with the order which was passed by the said Court agreeing for arbitration. We are not inclined to hear any other contention raised...petitioner (respondent herein) is at liberty to approach the High Court for filing of Review Petition bringing it to the notice of the High Court." 8. Respondent filed two Review Petitions before the High Court, being RVWPET No. 145 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation being at Cuttack. 12. Said application was dismissed by the District Judge on 06.03.2024, pursuant to which subject Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. 13. By the impugned order dated 20.06.2025, the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act holding the same to be non-maintainable for want of jurisdiction and also on ground that the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. 14. The High Court held that the seat of arbitration was at Cuttack. The fulcrum of the decision of the High Court is based on the fact that the appointment of the Arbitrator was made by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be clearly barred by limitation. The High Court held that, even if the petition at Sundargarh were treated to be initially filed in the wrong Court and the time spent therein could be excluded, since the Appellants chose to persist in the wrong Court and by the time the issue was decided, the delay would far exceed what is condonable. Thus, the High Court held that the petitions were clearly barred by limitation. 18. Aggrieved therefrom, subject appeal has been filed by the Appellants. 19. On the question of limitation, Learned Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submitted that the objection petition under section 34 of the Act was filed within the period of limitation. He submitted that the common Arbitral Awa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....than Govt. Agencies, the redressal of the dispute may be sought in the court of law within the jurisdiction of District Court/High Court, where the work will be executed." 24. Clause 40 of the eTender Notice dated 07.11.2012 reads as under: "Matter relating to any dispute or differences arising out of this tender and subsequent contract awarded based on this tender shall be subject to the Jurisdiction of District Court, where the subject work is to be executed." 25. It is not in dispute that the subject work was executed within the district of Sundargarh. Reference be also had to the Circular dated 13.11.2020 issued by the Law Department, State of Odisha in consultation with the High Court of Orissa, which shows that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e seat, the High Court clearly erred in treating the venue of the arbitration as the seat. 29. The judgments in the case of Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO) - (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 do not further the case of the Respondent for the reason that there is no "Seat" expressly designated or consented to by the parties. Cuttack was only a venue of the arbitration due to administrative convenience. 30. The High Court has clearly erred in also holding the 'Seat' as Cuttack because the disputes were referred to the Arbitrator by the High Court which has its seat at Cuttack. M....