Supreme Court rules that arbitration venue does not become the seat merely because a High Court appointed the arbitrator or proceedings were held there.

The Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between the juridical “seat” and physical “venue” of arbitration, holding that proceedings at Cuttack did not make it the seat merely because the Orissa High Court appointed the arbitrator there.

The Supreme Court on September 23, 2026, held that merely conducting arbitral proceedings at a particular place does not, by itself, determine the juridical seat of arbitration when there is no express designation or agreement between the parties.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside the Orissa High Court’s decision which had treated Cuttack as the seat of arbitration. The Supreme Court held that neither the location of the High Court which appointed the arbitrator nor the place where the arbitral proceedings were conducted could, by themselves, confer the status of juridical seat on Cuttack.

The ruling arose from a dispute involving Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) and GSCO Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The dispute related to a contract for hiring heavy earth-moving machinery and allied work in Sundargarh, Odisha.

Following the dispute, the Orissa High Court appointed Justice M.M. Das (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator in March 2019. The arbitral proceedings subsequently took place at Cuttack, where the arbitrator passed an award on October 25, 2021.

MCL thereafter approached the District Court at Sundargarh under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to challenge the arbitral award.

GSCO objected to the maintainability of the petitions, contending that Cuttack was the seat of arbitration and, therefore, the Sundargarh court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Orissa High Court accepted this contention and also held that the petitions were barred by limitation.

Supreme Court Explains Seat And Venue

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s approach and emphasised the legal distinction between the seat and venue of arbitration.

The seat determines the courts that exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings, whereas the venue ordinarily refers to the physical location where hearings or sittings take place.

The Court found that there was no express designation of Cuttack as the seat either in the parties’ arrangement or in the order appointing the arbitrator. Therefore, the fact that the proceedings happened to be conducted at Cuttack could not automatically convert Cuttack into the juridical seat.

The Bench further rejected the reasoning that Cuttack became the seat merely because the Orissa High Court was situated there and had appointed the arbitrator.

According to the Supreme Court, the appointment of an arbitrator by a particular High Court does not, in the absence of other circumstances indicating a contrary agreement, make the territorial location of that High Court the seat of arbitration.

Section 34 Challenge Restored Before Sundargarh Court

The Supreme Court also considered the contractual arrangement concerning jurisdiction. The work under the contract had been executed in Sundargarh, and the relevant contractual provisions supported the jurisdiction of the court connected with the place where the work was undertaken. No Commercial Court had been established in Sundargarh at the relevant time.

The Court accordingly allowed MCL’s appeal, set aside the Orissa High Court’s June 20, 2025 order and restored the Section 34 petitions before the District Judge, Sundargarh.

The Supreme Court also noted that the finding regarding limitation was erroneous, as the award was passed on October 25, 2021, while MCL filed the Section 34 petitions on December 8, 2021.

The ruling reinforces an important principle in Indian arbitration law: the physical location of arbitral hearings and the juridical seat of arbitration are not necessarily the same. A court’s territorial connection to the arbitrator’s appointment or the venue of proceedings cannot, without more, determine the seat and consequent supervisory jurisdiction.

Readers can follow further developments in arbitration and other legal developments through The Legal Observer’s News section.

For further legal updates and video coverage, visit The Legal Observer YouTube channel.