LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 23 September 2026

Does Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confer jurisdiction on every court within a High Court's territorial jurisdiction?

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ORS v. M/S GSCO (GURMEET SINGH AND COMPANY)
2026 INSC 1038
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.34 Arbitration and Conciliatio…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Section 34 of the Act confers jurisdiction on every court within a High Court's territorial jurisdiction.

Yes. A High Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire State, so a petition under Section 34 of the Act may be entertained by any Commercial or District Court within its territorial jurisdiction, unless the parties have agreed to the contrary or there is a specific determination of a seat in the order of appointment or by the Court. (¶31)

Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.11(6) — s.34 — s.42 — s.2(1)(e) — Seat and venue of arbitration — Territorial jurisdiction — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Seat and venue — Determination of seat — Held: Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a location does not by itself, or per se, determine the juridical seat of arbitration. Seat determines the courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction, while venue merely denotes the physical location where the sittings are held. (¶27, 28) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.11(6) — Appointment by a High Court — Seat not thereby fixed — Held further: The seat of a High Court does not confer jurisdiction on its courts merely because it appointed the arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. (¶30) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Territorial jurisdiction — Entire State — Held further: Section 34 of the Act confers jurisdiction on every court within a High Court's territorial jurisdiction, unless the parties have agreed to the contrary or there is a specific determination of a seat; the appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. (¶31, 32)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 31A High Court of a State exercises jurisdiction over the entire State and as such all the Commercial Courts/District Courts (where no commercial Court has been set up) within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Act, unless there is an agreement of the parties to the contrary or a specific determination of a ‘Seat’ in the order of appointment or any such stipulation/direction by the Court.
Acts & Sections
s.34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s.11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s.42 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s.2(1)(e) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ORS v. M/S GSCO (GURMEET SINGH AND COMPANY) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a location determine the juridical seat of arbitration?Does the seat of a High Court confer jurisdiction on its courts merely because it appointed the arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections