Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yashpreet Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 20 April, 2026
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CR-3884-2023 (O&M)
YASHPREET SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
(2) CR-4156-2023 (O&M)
SADHU SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(3) CR-5868-2023 (O&M)
AJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(4) CR-493-2024 (O&M)
LAKHWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(5) CR-497-2024 (O&M)
DILBAR SINGH @ JAGSEER SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -2-
(6) CR-6152-2023 (O&M)
MUDIT SINGLA AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(7) CR-498-2024 (O&M)
GURUDEV SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(8) CR-499-2024 (O&M)
ISHER SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(9) CR-500-2024 (O&M)
RAINU BALA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(10) CR-501-2024 (O&M)
AMARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -3-
(11) CR-504-2024 (O&M)
KANWALJIT SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(12) CR-1164-2024 (O&M)
VINOD KUMARI AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(13) CR-1173-2024 (O&M)
DEEPAK MONGA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(14) CR-1222-2024 (O&M)
NARINDER MAHESHWARI
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(15) CR-1277-2024 (O&M)
JAGDEEP GOEL
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -4-
(16) CR-268-2024 (O&M)
PREM KAUR AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(17) CR-288-2024 (O&M)
JIWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(18) CR-290-2024 (O&M)
NACHHATTER SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(19) CR-629-2024 (O&M)
RAJ KUMAR @ RAAJ KATIA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(20) CR-691-2024 (O&M)
NITIN KUMAR @ NITIN SETHI AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -5-
(21) CR-1151-2024 (O&M)
KRISHNA WIRE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(22) CR-1302-2024 (O&M)
PARMOD SINGLA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(23) CR-1306-2024 (O&M)
MONIKA GARG AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
(24) CR-1341-2024 (O&M)
SURINDER PAL
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(25) CR-1499-2024 (O&M)
BUTTA SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -6-
(26) CR-1502-2024 (O&M)
HARPREET SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(27) CR-1515-2024 (O&M)
PARMINDER SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(28) CR-1536-2024 (O&M)
BHUPINDER PAL SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(29) CR-1901-2024 (O&M)
VARINDER BANSAL AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(30) CR-1788-2024 (O&M)
BIJA MAL
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -7-
(31) CR-1880-2024 (O&M)
BIJA MAL @ BIJA MALL AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(32) CR-1724-2024 (O&M)
BHUPINDER SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(33) CR-1727-2024 (O&M)
BHUPINDER SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(34) CR-2316-2024 (O&M)
BIKKAR SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(35) CR-4053-2024 (O&M)
RENU @ RENU BALA AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -8-
(36) CR-4074-2024 (O&M)
SATGURU EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGISTERED) BATHINDA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(37) CR-4114-2024 (O&M)
JANAK RAJ AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(38) CR-3922-2024 (O&M)
PREM KUMAR @ PREM CHAND
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(39) CR-4639-2024 (O&M)
BABA JEE AGENCIES (P) LTD.
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(40) CR-4492-2024 (O&M)
HEMANT AGGARWAL AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -9-
(41) CR-4979-2024 (O&M)
NOHAR CHAND
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(42) CR-2412-2024 (O&M)
SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(43) CR-2415-2024 (O&M)
HARJINDER SINGH MANN
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(44) CR-2423-2024 (O&M)
AVTAR SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(45) CR-2576-2024 (O&M)
RAKESH MAHESHWARI AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -10-
(46) CR-2596-2024 (O&M)
BHOJ RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(47) CR-2582-2024 (O&M)
KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(48) CR-3491-2024 (O&M)
NAIB SINGH GROVER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(49) CR-3493-2024 (O&M)
NAIB SINGH GROVER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(50) CR-3496-2024 (O&M)
ROHIT KUMAR AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -11-
(51) CR-3724-2024 (O&M)
RAKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(52) CR-3814-2024 (O&M)
SNEH LATA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(53) CR-3821-2024 (O&M)
HARPREET SINGH GROVER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(54) CR-4009-2024 (O&M)
SUSHIL KUMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(55) CR-4056-2024 (O&M)
PARVEEN GARG
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -12-
(56) CR-4060-2024 (O&M)
ANJANA GARG AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(57) CR-4470-2024 (O&M)
RIBNA @ RUBAN RANI @ RUBNA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(58) CR-2701-2024 (O&M)
NARESH KUMARI AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(59) CR-2749-2024 (O&M)
ASHWANI KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(60) CR-2811-2024 (O&M)
HARMANDER SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -13-
(61) CR-2700-2024 (O&M)
SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(62) CR-7288-2024 (O&M)
SARABJEET KAUR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(63) CR-6242-2024 (O&M)
MAHINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(64) CR-6878-2024 (O&M)
SUKHDIP SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(65) CR-6006-2024 (O&M)
SHRI VISHWAKARMA BHAWAN AND TECHNICAL SOCIETY
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -14-
(66) CR-5961-2024 (O&M)
MONIKA RANI
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(67) CR-1105-2024 (O&M)
HARBANS LAL AGGARWAL
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(68) CR-1116-2024 (O&M)
LALIT KUMAR AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(69) CR-7230-2024 (O&M)
SATDEV @ SAT DEV GARG AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(70) CR-5976-2024 (O&M)
IKKATAR SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -15-
(71) CR-6204-2024 (O&M)
KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(72) CR-6270-2024 (O&M)
BALDEV KAUR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(73) CR-6144-2024 (O&M)
GURMEET KAUR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(74) CR-3374-2024 (O&M)
NAIB SINGH GROVER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(75) CR-4662-2024 (O&M)
ASHWANI KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -16-
(76) CR-4668-2024 (O&M)
NAVEEN ROMANA AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(77) CR-4717-2024 (O&M)
ANITA RANI AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(78) CR-4985-2024 (O&M)
SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(79) CR-5548-2024 (O&M)
PURSHOTAM LAL
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(80) CR-5663-2024 (O&M)
SHREE SANATAN DHARAM MAHAVIR DAL (REGISTERED)
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -17-
(81) CR-5906-2024 (O&M)
BHAG SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(82) CR-5916-2024 (O&M)
PATWINDER SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(83) CR-5917-2024 (O&M)
SAVITRI DEVI @ SANGEETA GOYAL
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(84) CR-5919-2024 (O&M)
RAMESH KUMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(85) CR-5928-2024 (O&M)
MOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -18-
(86) CR-5922-2024 (O&M)
KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(87) CR-5924-2024 (O&M)
KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(88) CR-5925-2024 (O&M)
HARPAL SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(89) CR-7318-2024 (O&M)
SATYA DEVI
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(90) CR-3203-2024 (O&M)
DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -19-
(91) CR-3214-2024 (O&M)
DAVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(92) CR-228-2025 (O&M)
BRIJ BALA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(93) CR-237-2025 (O&M)
SHAM SUNDER SHARMA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(94) CR-7399-2024 (O&M)
KAMLESH SINGLA
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(95) CR-766-2025 (O&M)
RAJIV KANSAL
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -20-
Reserved on: 16.02.2026
Pronounced on: 20.04.2026
Uploaded on: 20.04.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the
full judgment is pronounced: Full
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Yash Raj Deora, Senior Advocate
(Through Video Conferencing) with
Mr. Chander Kant Rana, Advocate,
Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate,
Mr. Sumit Rana, Advocate,
CR Nos.-7288, 2582, 1880, 2700, 2749, 4060, 4056, 4668, 4985,
4053, 3724, 3496 of 2024.
Mr. Ankit Joshi, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CR Nos.-5922, 4639, 2412, 2415, 2423,
2596, 2701, 6242, 6006, 5961, 5976, 6204, 6270, 6144,
5548, 5663, 5906, 5916, 5917, 5919, 5928, 5924, 5925, 7318,
3203, 3214, 7399-2024 and CR Nos.-228, 237, 766-2025.
Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CR Nos.-1306, 1499, 1502, 1515 and
1536 of 2024.
Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocate and
Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR-629-2024.
Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate for the
petitioner in CR-7230-2024.
Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR Nos.-1302 and 1341 of 2024.
Ms. Roja Agnihotri, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CR-5868-2023 and CR-2811-2024.
Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR-2316-2024.
Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CR Nos.-4074, 3922, 3491,
3493, 3814, 3821 and 3374 of 2024.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -21-
Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CR Nos.-493, 497, 498, 499 and 500 of 2024.
Mr. Raj Kumar Rathore, Advocate and
Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioners in CR Nos.-4114, 4492, 4979,
4009, 4662 and 4717 of 2024.
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR Nos.1788, 6878-2024.
Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CR Nos.-3884, 4156, 6152 of 2023 and
CR Nos.-501, 268, 288, 290, 504, 691, 1105, 1116 and
4470 of 2024.
Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CR Nos.-1164, 1173, 1122, 1177,
1151, 1901, 2576, 1724 and 1727 of 2024.
Mr. K. S. Kang, Advocate and
Ms. Yukti Garg, Advocate
for the respondent-NHAI in CR-1151-2024, CR-1499-2024, CR-
6242-2024, CR-500-2024, CR-1302-2024, CR-1536-2024, CR-
497-2024, CR-5917-2024, CR-5919-2024, CR-5924-2024, CR-
6270-2024, CR-3203-2024, CR-5663-2024, CR-5922-2024, CR-
7399-2024, CR-6204-2024, CR-5916-2024, CR-5925-2024, CR-
228-2025, CR-237-2025, CR-3884-2023 and CR-6878-2024.
Mr. Raghav Goel, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent-UOI in CR Nos.-493, 496, 497, 498, 499,
500, 268, 290, 629 of 2024.
Mr. D. K. Singal, Advocate
for respondent-NHAI in CR Nos.-1724, 1727, 2811, 4056 of 2024.
Mr. Nihit Lomis, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1, 3 to 5 in CR-1788-2024 and
for respondents No.1 and 8 in CR-4470-2024.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Preet Agroa, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CR-4156-2023 and
for respondent No.2 in CR-1499-2024.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -22-
Mr. Madhav Mehrotra, Advocate and
Mr. Bhanu Kathpalia, Advocate
for respondents-NHAI in CR Nos.1502, 1515, 498, 499, 1173,
2749, 5548, 5906, 6144 and 6006 of 2024.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate
for respondent-UOI in CR Nos.-691, 4492-2024.
Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Senior Panel Counsel,
for respondent/UOI in CR-4074-2024 and CR-7399-2024.
Mr. Aditya Duggal, Advocate
for respondent-NHAI in CR-4074-2024.
Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate
for the respondent-NHAI in
CR Nos.-2582, 3491, 3493, 3374, 5928, 5961, 7659, 2700 and
7318 of 2024.
Mr. Lalit Attri, Advocate,
for the respondent-UOI in CR Nos.-1302, 5906, 5961,
6006, 5976, 5916, 5917, 5922 and 5925 of 2024.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate and
Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate,
for respondents No.4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 in CR-3884-2023.
Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Senior Panel Counsel
for respondent-UOI in CR-3884-2023, CR-4053-2024,
CR-4979-2024 and CR-4985-2024.
Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel Counsel and
Mr. Ishank Bansal, Advocate
for the respondent-UOI in CR-3884-2023,
CR-4624-2024, CR-2701-2024,
CR-4060-2024, CR-3496-2024,
CR-4056-2024, CR-1724-2024,
CR-4717-2024, CR-2811-2024,
CR-5548-2024, CR-4668-2024,
CR-6152-2023, CR-499-2024,
CR-1151-2024, CR-1341-2024,
CR-1499-2024, CR-1502-2024,
CR-1515-2024, CR-1536-2024,
CR-1222-2024, CR-1727-2024,
CR-7230-2024, CR-766-2025,
CR-237-2025, CR-228-2025 and CR-1255-2025.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -23-
Mr. B. S. Sudan, Advocate,
for respondent-NHAI in CR Nos.-290, 268, 1164, 501, 504, 4979-
2024 and CR Nos.6152, 5868- 2023.
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Senior Central Government Counsel,
for respondent No.1-UOI in CR Nos.-1164, 1173,
1306 and 2316 of 2024.
Mr. Anurag Bindal, Advocate,
for respondent No.3 in CR-4492-2024 and
for respondent No.2 in CR-4060-2024.
(Through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate,
for the respondent-NHAI in CR Nos.-288, 691, 1222, 1277 and
7288 of 2024.
Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the respondent-UOI in CR Nos.-4470, 3922,
3814, 3203, 3214, 2749, 2700, 2423, 2415, 1277,
2412 and 4009 of 2024.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.
1. This is a bunch of 95 Civil Revision Petitions which have been
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking indulgence of this
Court on the issue of jurisdiction of the Court to hear the objections under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act').
2. The present bunch of cases is bifurcated into two categories i.e.
restored objections under Section 34 of the Act and fresh objections under
Section 34 of the Act, as per the prescribed Schedule-'A', which is attached at
the foot of the judgment.
3. All these cases are taken up together for final disposal with the
consent of the learned counsels for the parties since the issue of law involved is
the same.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -24-
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil
Revision No.3884 of 2023, titled Yashpreet Singh versus Union of India and
others.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
5. The issue of law involved in the present bunch of cases is as
under:-
"In the matters concerning statutory arbitration under the
provisions of Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the National Highways
Act, 1956, what will be the seat of arbitration for the purpose of
entertaining the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996."
6. The brief facts of the present set of cases are that the land of the
landlosers was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
and thereafter, an award was passed by the Competent Authority for Land
Acquisition (CALA). After the passing of the CALA award, a reference was
made to the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956
for the purpose of passing an award. In all the cases, an award has been passed
by the learned Arbitrator, who is the Commissioner, Faridkot Division,
Faridkot. However, the property which is the subject matter of acquisition is
situated at Bathinda. The State of Punjab has five Divisions i.e. Patiala,
Faridkot, Rupnagar, Jalandhar and Ferozepur and each Division comprises of
different Districts. The subject matter of the present petitions pertains only to
Faridkot Division, which comprises of three Districts i.e. Bathinda, Faridkot
and Mansa.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -25-
7. The Central Government appointed the Commissioner, Faridkot
Division, Faridkot as Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956, as per order No.RW/NH-37014/05/2012-NHDP-IVA
dated 17.08.2015 for revenue districts of Bathinda and Faridkot. Vide Annexure
P-4, the award was passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Faridkot
Division, Faridkot on 18.01.2019 and signed by him at Faridkot on the same
date and thereafter, in the present cases, objections were filed under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at District Bathinda. In 83 cases
out of the present bunch of cases, the objections were returned by the learned
Additional District Judge, Bathinda on different dates on the ground that the
award was passed at Faridkot and while referring to the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda was of the view
that the Court at Bathinda lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide
the application/petition under Section 34 of the Act because the seat of the
Arbitrator remained at Faridkot, which is a different place. In this way, the
objections which were filed by the National Highways Authority of India
(NHAI) were returned because of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
8. Subsequently, another order was passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Bathinda vide Annexure P-2 on 29.04.2023, whereby the
objections were restored against its original number on the ground that a
Coordinate Bench of this Court had earlier passed a judgment in a bunch of
petitions with lead case bearing Civil Revision No.259 of 2022, titled National
Highways Authority of India and another versus Yashpreet Singh and another,
decided on 30.09.2022, which was assailed before Hon'ble Supreme Court in
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -26-
SLP Nos.20804-20809 of 2022 and the SLPs were dismissed with the
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it was not inclined to interfere
with the impugned judgment except to the extent that since the objections under
Section 34 of the Act have been filed at Bathinda and the respondents have
raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction, the aspect of territorial
jurisdiction will not be influenced by any observations made in the impugned
judgment. The aforesaid order (Annexure P-2), by which the learned Additional
District Judge, Bathinda restored the objection petition to its original number, is
under challenge in one set of the present Civil Revision Petitions. In the other
set of Civil Revision Petitions, the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda
has entertained the objections. Therefore, the issue involved in the present cases
pertains to as to which Court will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
objections under Section 34 of the Act i.e. whether it is the Court at Faridkot or
Bathinda, which are two separate Districts, although Bathinda falls within the
Faridkot Division as aforesaid.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE
PETITIONERS
9. The petitioners, who are the landlosers, are aggrieved by the order
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the learned
Court has entertained the objections under Section 34 of the Act.
10. Mr. Yash Raj Deora, learned Senior Counsel appearing through
video conferencing and other learned counsels appearing for the petitioners
have submitted that the territorial jurisdiction of a Court for entertaining the
objections under Section 34 of the Act is to be determined on the basis of the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -27-
seat of arbitration. Wherever there is a seat of arbitration, the objections under
Section 34 of the Act would lie at the same place and that Court will have the
territorial jurisdiction. They further submitted that in the present cases, the
arbitration is in the nature of a statutory arbitration because the Arbitrator has
been appointed not by mutual agreement between the parties but by operation
of the provisions of a statute. In this regard, they referred to the provisions of
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides that if the
amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on an
application by either of the parties be determined by the Arbitrator to be
appointed by the Central Government and further referred to Section 3G(6) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides that subject to the provisions
of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall
apply to every arbitration under this Act. They further submitted that in this
way, the nature of appointment of an Arbitrator is statutory because after the
passing of the CALA award, either of the parties can invoke the provisions of
sub-section (5) & (6) of Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and
seek referral of the matter to the Arbitrator, who is to be appointed by the
Central Government. Once an Arbitrator is appointed, then the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will come into play. They further
submitted that under the aforesaid provision of Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956, the Arbitrator is to be appointed by the Central
Government and in pursuance thereto, the Central Government in the Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways issued an order dated 17.08.2015, wherein the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -28-
designation of the officer having its jurisdiction over the revenue Districts in the
State of Punjab has been so defined and in this way, the concerned Divisional
Commissioner of the respective Division is appointed as an Arbitrator. In
pursuance of the aforesaid powers conferred upon the respective Divisional
Commissioners, the awards which were passed by the CALA in the present
cases, were referred to the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, who
heard the parties and passed the award at Faridkot, which was signed at
Faridkot, making Faridkot the place where the award was passed. They also
submitted that all the hearings were conducted at Faridkot and thereafter, the
award was passed at Faridkot and in this way, both the venue and the seat of the
present arbitration proceedings were only at Faridkot.
11. They submitted that ordinarily, the seat of arbitration can be
mutually decided by the parties in the form of an agreement and for that
purpose, the provisions of Section 20 of the Act would apply, which provides
for the place of arbitration, wherein parties are always free to agree on the place
of arbitration but in the absence of such agreement, the place of arbitration is to
be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal having regard to the circumstances of
the case, including the convenience of the parties. However, in the present
cases, sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act will not apply as the place of
arbitration is not governed by any agreement between the parties, nor the parties
have agreed upon the same because the appointment of the Arbitrator was
statutory in nature and since it was a statutory arbitration, there was no occasion
for the parties to have agreed upon a convenient place for either the seat or
venue, nor has the same been defined anywhere.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -29-
12. In this regard, they referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in BGS SGS Soma JV versus NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234 to contend
that although Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment was not dealing
with statutory arbitration but the principle of law with regard to seat and venue
has been enunciated and settled and since the award has been passed by
the learned Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot
undisputedly, the objections under Section 34 would lie at Faridkot only and not
at Bathinda because the same being a different District notwithstanding that the
property in all the cases is situated at Bathinda.
13. They submitted that in those set of cases where an order has been
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, restoring the
objections after they had earlier been returned, the same was without
jurisdiction and there was no power vested in the learned Additional District
Judge, Bathinda to have recalled and restored the objections once the same have
been returned and on this ground as well, the impugned orders by which the
objections were restored at Bathinda are liable to be set aside. They
further submitted that consequently, the provisions of Section 31(4) of the
Arbitration Act would also come into play and by virtue of the aforesaid
provision, the objections are required to be filed at the place where the award
was made.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
14. All the learned counsels for the respondents have jointly argued the
matter.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -30-
15. It was the first argument of the learned counsels for the
respondents that the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda restored the
objections in view of the order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.20804-20809 of 2022. In this regard, they
submitted that when the landlosers filed executions before the learned Courts at
Bathinda, the respondent-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
challenged the maintainability of the execution proceedings at Faridkot on the
ground that the Executing Court at Faridkot lacks territorial jurisdiction. The
issue with regard to which Court has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the execution proceedings was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a
bunch petitions with the lead case bearing Civil Revision No.259 of 2022 on
30.09.2022 vide Annexure P-5, whereby it was held that the executions can be
entertained by the Court at Faridkot, which has jurisdiction to entertain the
same and in addition to the above, it was held that even objections under
Section 34 of the Act are to be filed at Faridkot and for that as well, Faridkot
Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the same and in this way, it was so
held that both execution and objections under Section 34 of the Act would lie
before the Court at Faridkot. This aforesaid judgment passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court was assailed by the National Highways Authority of India
(NHAI) before Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.20804-20809 of 2022 and
the said SLPs were dismissed with certain observations. It was so observed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that no interference was called for in the impugned
judgment except to the extent that since the objections under Section 34 of the
Act have been filed in Bathinda and the respondents have raised an objection
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -31-
about the territorial jurisdiction, the aspect of territorial jurisdiction will not be
influenced by any observations made in the impugned judgment. They further
submitted that in this way, the issue of law as to at which place the objections
were to be filed under Section 34 of the Act was settled by Hon'ble Supreme
Court and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda rightly
restored the objections under Section 34 of the Act on the basis of the aforesaid
order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Annexure P-6.
16. Another argument was raised by the learned counsels for the
respondents that the order, which was issued by the Central Government on
17.08.2015 only provides that the officer mentioned in Column-2, which is a
Divisional Commissioner, will be the Arbitrator, who shall exercise the powers
conferred and perform the duties imposed on an Arbitrator by or under the said
Act within the local limits of his respective jurisdiction as specified in Column
(3) and (4) of the said table. They further submitted that in Column (4), only the
State of Punjab is mentioned, whereas in Column (3) different revenue Districts
are mentioned and therefore, the respective Districts will also have territorial
jurisdiction in this regard and therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid Notification,
even the District Court at Bathinda will have jurisdiction, being a revenue
District.
17. Another argument was raised by the learned counsels for the
respondents that the seat is to be determined under the provisions of
Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Arbitration Act and venue is to be
determined by virtue of Section 20(3) of the Act and by way of the aforesaid
order issued by Government of India, the venue may be Faridkot but the seat
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -32-
will be at District Bathinda and in addition to above, the land is also situated at
Bathinda and therefore, cause of action arises at Bathinda and consequently,
Bathinda would be the place of filing the objections under Section 34 of the
Act. They further submitted that the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV's case (Supra) will not apply to the
present cases in view of the fact that the present cases deal with statutory
arbitration.
18. It was further submitted by them that even if the venue of the
present arbitration was at Faridkot, the same cannot become the seat because
the seat has neither been determined by any agreement between the parties nor
by way of the order of the Central Government. A further argument was also
raised by learned counsels for the respondents that in case the objections under
Section 34 of the Act are to be heard at Faridkot, it will give rise to significant
practical difficulties due to high volume of litigation in that area and the cases
transferred from Bathinda would accumulate at Faridkot causing hardship and
therefore, on that ground as well, the Courts at Bathinda should have the
territorial jurisdiction and not the Courts at Faridkot. They also referred to the
judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in The National Highways
Authority of India (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) Government
of India versus Dinesh Singh, Arbitration Appeals No.99, 100, 101, 103, 105,
106 and 107 of 2021, decided on 07.05.2025 to contend that even in a statutory
arbitration, where there is no express designation of the venue, it cannot be
treated as a jurisdictional seat and therefore, in that case, the objections
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -33-
were held to be maintainable at Shivpuri and not at Gwalior, which was a
Division.
ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS
19. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
20. The only issue in the present case, which is crystallized, is the
determination of the seat for the purpose of entertaining objections under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a statutory
arbitration governed under the provisions of Section 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the
National Highways Act, 1956, read with the order issued by the Central
Government.
21. The provisions of Section 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the National
Highways Act, 1956, are reproduced as under:-
3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
(5) If the amount determined by the competent
authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not
acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an
application by either of the parties, be determined by the
arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government--
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)
shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
22. In pursuance of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956,
the Central Government vide order No.RW/NH-37014/05/2012-NHDP-IVA
dated 17.08.2015, appointed the Officers mentioned in Column (2) of the table
to be Arbitrators for the purposes of the said sub-section, who shall exercise the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -34-
powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Arbitrators by or under the
said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction as specified in
column (3) and (4) of the said table for land acquisition for the projects for four-
laning of Amritsar-Bathinda section of NH-15 in the State of Punjab.
23. The aforesaid order dated 17.08.2015, issued by the Government of
India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, is reproduced as under:-
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
(NHDP-IVA-Cell)
Transport Bhawan
1, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001
No.RW/NH-37014/05/2012-NHDP-IVA Dated: 17th August, 2015
ORDER
In pursuance of Sub-Section (5) of Section 3G of the National
Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), the Central Government hereby
appoints the Officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, to be
Arbitrator for the purposes of the said Sub-Section who shall exercise
the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Arbitrators by
or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective
jurisdiction as specified in column (3) and (4) of the said table for land
acquisition for the projects for four-laning of Amritsar-Bathinda section
of NH-15 in the state of Punjab. Sub-Section (6) and (7) of Section-3G
of the Act shall be taken into consideration while, passing awards by the
Arbitrator.
S. No. Designation of the Officer Revenue District State
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1 Commissioner, Jallandhar Division Amritsar, Tarn Taran Punjab
2 Commissioner, Ferozepur Division Ferozepur Punjab
3 Commissioner, Faridkot Division Faridkot, Bathinda Punjab
Sd/-
(Maya Prakash)
Director, Government of India
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -35-
24. A perusal of the aforesaid would show that the Officer who has
been appointed as an Arbitrator is of the rank of Commissioner and for the three
Divisions of the State of Punjab i.e. Jalandhar, Ferozepur and Faridkot Division,
the Commissioner has been designated as the Arbitrator. Each Division
comprises of the Revenue Districts mentioned in Column (3). So far as the
subject matter of the present cases is concerned, the Commissioner of Faridkot
Division has been designated as the concerned Officer/Arbitrator for two
Revenue Districts i.e. Faridkot and Bathinda. In this way, by virtue of the
aforesaid order issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways under the provisions Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956, the Commissioner of Faridkot Division has been
appointed as the Arbitrator for the present cases, which pertain to four-laning of
Amritsar-Bathinda section of NH-15 in the State of Punjab. The land which was
acquired was admittedly within the revenue district of Bathinda but within the
Division of Faridkot.
25. During the course of arguments, all the learned counsels for the
parties have submitted that there is no dispute on the factual aspect that the
awards in all the cases have been passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot
Division, Faridkot and he conducted the proceedings at Faridkot, where all the
hearings were held and the awards were passed, which also finds mention in the
award (Annexure P-4). In this way, the factual position with regard to hearing
and conducting of the arbitral proceedings as well as passing of the awards at
Faridkot, is not in dispute.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -36-
26. As noted in the earlier paragraphs, the issue involved in the present
cases is as to which Court i.e. Bathinda or Faridkot will have territorial
jurisdiction to hear the objections under Section 34 of the Act. The land which
was acquired is situated in Bathinda but the Arbitrator, who was a statutory
Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956
as aforesaid, conducted the arbitral proceedings at Faridkot and passed the
award at Faridkot. Faridkot is a Division comprising of two revenue districts, as
per the aforesaid order issued by the Government of India, i.e. Faridkot and
Bathinda. In 83 cases out of the present bunch, the objections under Section 34
of the Arbitration Act were filed by respondent-NHAI at Bathinda but vide
different orders of different dates, the learned Additional District Judge,
Bathinda returned the objections on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction
by observing that the seat of the Arbitrator is at Faridkot. This order was passed
in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV’s
case (Supra) as well as the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Civil Revision No.259 of 2022 dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-5), wherein it was
held that the award is to be executed at Faridkot and it was also observed that
the seat of the Arbitrator was fixed at Faridkot and therefore, execution
proceedings are maintainable only at Faridkot. In the aforesaid judgment of the
Coordinate Bench, it was also held that only the Court at Faridkot has
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the objections under Section 34 of the Act.
In this way, the Coordinate Bench of this Court so held that both the objections
under Section 34 of the Act and the execution proceedings are to be held at
Faridkot since the seat of arbitration was at Faridkot. Paragraphs No.37, 41 and
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -37-
44 of the aforesaid judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on
30.09.2022 (Annexure P-5) is reproduced as under:-
“37. Section 2(e)(i) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act would reveal that Faridkot Court has only
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the objection petition
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and
also the execution and therefore, the objection petition filed
at Bathinda Court is not maintainable. Petitioners have
raised points, which were never pleaded in the applications
before the executing Court and the same cannot be allowed
to be taken in revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and the objection petition deserved to
be dismissed.
41. In the present case, the seat of the Arbitration was
designated at Faridkot and therefore, the jurisdiction
exclusively vests in the Court at Faridkot. Under the law of
arbitration, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which
applies to suits filed in Courts, a reference to “seat” is a
concept by which a neutral venue can be chosen by the
parties to an arbitration clause. The neutral venue may not
in the classical sense have jurisdiction i.e. no part of the
cause of action may have arisen at the neutral venue and
neither would any of the provisions of Sections 16 to 21 of
the Code of Civil Procedure be attracted. In arbitration law
however, as has been held above, the moment “seat” is
determined, the fact that the seat is at Faridkot would vest
Faridkot Court with exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes
of regulating arbitral proceedings arising out of the
agreement between the parties.
44. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -38-the seat of the Arbitrator was fixed at Faridkot and the
execution proceedings are maintainable in the Court at
Faridkot. Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 has no application. The award has to be executed in
the Principal Civil Court at Faridkot.”
27. The aforesaid judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court was
assailed by the respondent-NHAI before Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide
Annexure P-6 dated 29.11.2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special
Leave Petitions and observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment except to the extent that since the objections under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have been filed in Bathinda and
the respondents have raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction, the
aspect of territorial jurisdiction will not be influenced by any observations
made in the impugned judgment. The aforesaid order passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) is reproduced as
under:-
“On hearing learned for parties, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned judgment except to the extent
that since the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed in Bathinda and
the respondents have raised an objection about the
territorial jurisdiction, the aspect of territorial jurisdiction
will not be influenced by any observations made in the
impugned judgment.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed with the
aforesaid observations.
Pending application stands disposed of.”
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -39-
28. It was thereafter that the impugned order in the present set of
petitions i.e. Annexure P-2 was passed on 29.04.2023, whereby while referring
to the aforesaid order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the objection petition
under Section 34 of the Act which was earlier returned was now directed to be
restored against its original number and at the earlier/actual stage. On the basis
of the aforesaid order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Additional
District Judge, Bathinda, restored the objections under Section 34 of the Act
and in the aforesaid set of 83 cases, the said restoration order has been
challenged by the landlosers.
29. Before delving into ascertaining the correct position of law
pertaining to the jurisdictional seat, as to whether the Bathinda Court or the
Faridkot Court would be the jurisdictional seat and consequently, which Court
would have territorial jurisdiction to hear the objections under Section 34 of the
Act, it will be just and proper to analyze the aforesaid judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-5 as well as the order passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Annexure P-6, in which the aforesaid judgment
was assailed by respondent-NHAI. A perusal of Annexure P-5, which is a
judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, would show that the
cases therein pertained to the issue of execution. The landlosers had filed
execution at Faridkot. Thereafter, the Union of India filed an application under
Section 42 of the Arbitration Act for the transfer of execution to Bathinda,
which was dismissed on 26.10.2021. This order dismissing the transfer
application was subsequently challenged by the Union of India. The Union of
India wanted executions to be filed at Bathinda and also the transfer of
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -40-
execution applications from Faridkot to Bathinda relying on Section 42
because the objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed prior to the
executions.
30. In paragraph No.31 of the aforesaid judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court, reference was made to the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV’s case (Supra) by observing that if the
venue of arbitration is designated without specifying the seat of arbitration, the
stated venue would be the juridical seat of the arbitration and the objection
petition under Section 34 of the Act would lie at that place only. In paragraph
No.32 of the aforesaid judgment, it was observed that the seat of the Arbitrator
has been fixed at Faridkot and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, Bathinda
Court has any jurisdiction. In paragraph No.37, it was observed that Section
2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would reveal that Faridkot Court
only has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the objection petition under Section
34 of the Act and also the execution and therefore, the objection petition filed at
Bathinda Court is not maintainable. In paragraph No.41, it was observed that
the seat of the Arbitration was designated at Faridkot and therefore, the
jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Court at Faridkot. Thereafter, in paragraph
No.43, it was observed that the Court at Faridkot has the exclusive jurisdiction
to the exclusion of other Courts in the country as juridical seat of the arbitration
was fixed at Faridkot. It was further observed in paragraph No.44 that the seat
of the Arbitrator was fixed at Faridkot and the execution proceedings are
maintainable in the Court at Faridkot and the award has to be executed in the
Principal Civil Court at Faridkot.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -41-
31. When the respondent-NHAI assailed the aforesaid judgment passed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, then the Special Leave Petitions were
dismissed vide Annexure P-6 on 29.11.2022 but at the same time, Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that since the objections under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed in Bathinda and the
landlosers have raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction, the aspect
of territorial jurisdiction will not be influenced by any observations made in the
impugned judgment. In this way, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment
of a Coordinate Bench of this Court with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of
both filing of objections under Section 34 of the Act as well as the place of
filing of execution. However, so far as those cases which were assailed before
Hon’ble Supreme Court are concerned, it was so observed that since the
objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have already been filed in
Bathinda, the observations in the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court would not have any influence upon exercising of jurisdiction by the
Court at Bathinda while hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act. In other
words, Hon’ble Supreme Court left the aforesaid issue of law open as to
whether the objections under Section 34 of the Act can be filed at Bathinda or
not. There is no observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court as to which Court will
have territorial jurisdiction. The only limited observation made was that the
observations of the Coordinate Bench of this Court will not influence the
territorial jurisdiction of the Bathinda Court. Therefore, the issue involved in
the present cases as to whether the Bathinda Court or the Faridkot Court will
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -42-
have territorial jurisdiction has not been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court and
this issue is still open, which needs adjudication in the present cases.
32. In order to analyze the correct position of law based upon the law
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it will be necessary to refer to the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In BGS SGS Soma JV’s case (Supra), a
three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue as to
whether the seat of the arbitral proceedings would be New Delhi or Faridabad,
consequent upon which a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act may
be filed dependent upon where the seat of arbitration is located. The relevant
Clause of that case provided that the arbitral proceedings shall be held at New
Delhi/Faridabad, India. It was observed that when the parties, either by
agreement or, in default of there being an agreement, where the Arbitral
Tribunal determines a particular place as the seat of the arbitration
under Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, it becomes clear that the
parties having chosen the seat, or the Arbitral Tribunal having determined the
seat, have also chosen the Courts at the seat for the purpose of interim orders
and challenges to the award. Reference in the aforesaid judgment was also
made to an earlier judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indus Mobile
Distribution Private Limited versus Datawind Innovations Private Limited &
Ors., (2017) 7 SCC 678, wherein it was observed that the moment a seat is
designated by agreement between the parties, it is akin to an exclusive
jurisdiction clause, which would then vest the Courts at the “seat” with
exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings arising out
of the agreement between the parties. While also referring to the earlier
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -43-
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in BALCO versus Kaiser
Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552, it was observed that
BALCO does not “unmistakably” hold that two Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction, i.e., the seat Court and the Court within whose jurisdiction the
cause of action arises and the subsequent paragraphs of BALCO (supra) clearly
and unmistakably state that choosing of a “seat” amounts to the choosing of the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at which the “seat” is located. It was further
observed in BGS SGS Soma JV’s case (Supra) that wherever there is an
express designation of a “venue” and no designation of any alternative place as
the “seat”, combined with a supranational body of rules governing the
arbitration, and no other significant contrary indicia, the inexorable conclusion
is that the stated venue is actually the juridical seat of the arbitral proceeding. It
was further observed that whenever there is a designation of a place of
arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the “venue” of the arbitration
proceedings, the expression “arbitration proceedings” would make it clear that
the “venue” is really the “seat” of the arbitral proceedings, as the aforesaid
expression does not include just one or more individual or particular hearing,
but the arbitration proceedings as a whole, including the making of an award at
that place. Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the facts of that case
thereafter observed that the proceedings of that case were finally held at New
Delhi, and the awards were signed in New Delhi and not at Faridabad, which
would lead to the conclusion that both the parties had chosen New Delhi as the
“seat” of arbitration under Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and this
being the case, both the parties had therefore, chosen that the Courts at New
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -44-
Delhi alone would have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and
the fact that a part of the cause of action may have arisen at Faridabad would
not be relevant once the “seat” has been chosen, which would then amount to an
exclusive jurisdiction clause so far as Courts of the “seat” are concerned.
33. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV’s case (Supra) are reproduced
as under:-
“1. Leave granted. Three appeals before us raise
questions as to maintainability of appeals under Section
37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Arbitration Act, 1996“), and, given the
arbitration clause in these proceedings, whether the “seat”
of the arbitration proceedings is New Delhi or Faridabad,
consequent upon which a petition under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, 1996 may be filed dependent on where the
seat of arbitration is located.
2(vi). Arbitration proceedings shall be held at New
Delhi/Faridabad, India and the language of the arbitration
proceedings and that of all documents and communications
between the parties shall be English.
3. On 16.05.2011, a notice of Arbitration was issued
by the petitioner to the respondent, in regard to payment of
compensation for losses suffered due to abnormal delays and
additional costs as a result of hindrances caused by the
respondent. A three-member Arbitral Tribunal was
constituted as per clause 67.3 of the agreement under the
Arbitration Act, 1996. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed
its statement of claim seeking recovery of an amount of INR
986.60 crores plus CHF 1060619. Between August 2011 and
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -45-
August 2016, seventy-one sittings of the Arbitral Tribunal
took place at New Delhi. The Tribunal then delivered its
unanimous award at New Delhi on 26.08.2016, by which the
claims of the petitioner aggregating to INR 424,81,54,096.29
were allowed, together with simple interest at 14% per
annum till the date of actual payment. On 04.10.2016, in
view of certain computational and typographical errors in
the arbitral award, the figure of 424,81,54,096.29 was
rectified to INR 424,70,52,126.66. On 03.01.2017, being
aggrieved by the arbitral award and the rectification thereto,
the respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, 1996 seeking to set aside these awards
before the Court of the District and Sessions Judge,
Faridabad, Haryana. On 28.04.2017, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 151 read with Order VII Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to
as the “CPC“) and Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act,
1996, seeking a return of the petition filed under Section
34 for presentation before the appropriate Court at New
Delhi and/or the District Judge at Dhemaji, Assam. In
November, 2017, after the constitution of a Special
Commercial Court at Gurugram, the Section 34 petition filed
at Faridabad was transferred to the said Gurugram
Commercial Court and numbered as Arbitration Case No.74
(CIS No. ARB/118/2017).
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
21. We now examine the second part of the challenge
made by the petitioners to the impugned judgment, which
relates to the determination of the “seat” of the arbitral
proceedings between the parties. The impugned judgment of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court referred to BALCO
(supra) and Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -46-
other judgments of this Court, in order to arrive at the
conclusion that the arbitration clause in the present case
does not refer to the “seat” of arbitration, but only refers to
the “venue” of arbitration. Consequently, the impugned
judgment holds that since a part of the cause of action had
arisen in Faridabad, and the Faridabad Commercial Court
was approached first, the Faridabad Court alone would
have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings, and the
courts at New Delhi would have no such jurisdiction. The
correctness of these propositions has been vehemently
assailed before us, and it is there- fore important to lay down
the law on what constitutes the “juridical seat” of arbitral
proceedings, and whether, once the seat is delineated by the
arbitration agreement, courts at the place of the seat would
alone thereafter have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral
proceedings.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
43. In any case, a judgment must be read as a whole,
so that conflicting parts may be harmonised to reveal the
true ratio of the judgment. However, if this is not possible,
and it is found that the internal conflicts within the judgment
cannot be resolved, then the first endeavour that must be
made is to see whether a ratio decidendi can be culled out
without the conflicting portion. If not, then, as held by Lord
Denning in Harper and Ors. v. National Coal Board, (1974)
2 All ER 441, the binding nature of the precedent on the
point on which there is a conflict in a judgment, comes under
a cloud.
44. If paras 75, 76, 96, 110, 116, 123 and 194 of
BALCO are to be read together, what becomes clear is that
Section 2(1)(e) has to be construed keeping in view Section
20 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which gives recognition to
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -47-
party autonomy- the Arbitration Act, 1996 having accepted
the territoriality principle in Section 2(2), following the
UNCITRAL Model Law. The narrow construction of Section
2(1)(e) was expressly rejected by the five-Judge Bench in
BALCO. This being so, what has then to be seen is what is
the effect Section 20 would have on Section 2(1)(e) of the
Arbitration Act, 1996.
45. It was not until this Court’s judgment in Indus
Mobile Distribution Private Limited that the provisions
of Section 20 were properly analysed in the light of the 246th
Report of the Law Commission of India titled, ‘Amendments
to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996‘ (August, 2014)
(hereinafter referred to as the “Law Commission Report,
2014”), under which Section 20(1) and (2) would refer to the
“seat” of the arbitration and Section 20(3) would refer only
to the “venue” of the arbitration. Given the fact that when
parties, either by agreement or, in default of there being an
agreement, where the arbitral tribunal determines a
particular place as the seat of the arbitration under Section
31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, it becomes clear that the
parties having chosen the seat, or the arbitral tribunal
having determined the seat, have also chosen the Courts at
the seat for the purpose of interim orders and challenges to
the award.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
53. In Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Limited, after
clearing the air on the meaning of Section 20 of the
Arbitration Act, 1996, the Court in paragraph 19 (which has
already been set out hereinabove) made it clear that the
moment a seat is designated by agreement between the
parties, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, which
would then vest the Courts at the “seat” with exclusive
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -48-
jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings
arising out of the agreement between the parties.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
57. The view of the Delhi High Court in Antrix
Corporation Ltd., which followed judgments of the Bombay
High Court, does not commend itself to us. First and
foremost, it is incorrect to state that the example given by the
Court in para 96 of BALCO reinforces the concurrent
jurisdiction aspect of the said paragraph. As has been
pointed out by us, the conclusion that the Delhi as well as
the Mumbai or Kolkata Courts would have jurisdiction in the
example given in the said paragraph is wholly incorrect,
given the sentence, “This would be irrespective of the fact
that the obligations to be performed under the contract were
to be performed either at Mumbai or at Kolkata, and only
arbitration is to take place in Delhi”. The sentence which
follows this is out of sync with this sentence, and the other
paragraphs of the judgment. Thus, BALCO does not
“unmistakably” hold that two Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction, i.e., the seat Court and the Court within whose
jurisdiction the cause of action arises. What is missed by
these High Court judgments is the subsequent paragraphs in
BALCO, which clearly and unmistakably state that the
choosing of a “seat” amounts to the choosing of the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at which the “seat” is
located. What is also missed are the judgments of this Court
in Enercon (India) Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
61. It will thus be seen that wherever there is an
express designation of a “venue”, and no designation of any
alternative place as the “seat”, combined with a
supranational body of rules governing the arbitration, and
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -49-
no other significant contrary indicia, the inexorable
conclusion is that the stated venue is actually the juridical
seat of the arbitral proceeding.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
82. On a conspectus of the aforesaid judgments, it may
be concluded that whenever there is the designation of a
place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the
“venue” of the arbitration proceedings, the expression
“arbitration proceedings” would make it clear that the
“venue” is really the “seat” of the arbitral proceedings, as
the aforesaid expression does not include just one or more
individual or particular hearing, but the arbitration
proceedings as a whole, including the making of an award at
that place. This language has to be contrasted with language
such as “tribunals are to meet or have witnesses, experts or
the parties” where only hearings are to take place in the
“venue”, which may lead to the conclusion, other things
being equal, that the venue so stated is not the “seat” of
arbitral proceedings, but only a convenient place of meeting.
Further, the fact that the arbitral proceedings “shall be
held” at a particular venue would also indicate that the
parties intended to anchor arbitral proceedings to a
particular place, signifying thereby, that that place is the
seat of the arbitral proceedings. This, coupled with there
being no other significant contrary indicia that the stated
venue is merely a “venue” and not the “seat” of the arbitral
proceedings, would then conclusively show that such a
clause designates a “seat” of the arbitral proceedings. In an
International context, if a supranational body of rules is to
govern the arbitration, this would further be an indicia that
“the venue”, so stated, would be the seat of the arbitral
proceedings. In a national context, this would be replaced by
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -50-
the Arbitration Act, 1996 as applying to the “stated venue”,
which then becomes the “seat” for the purposes of
arbitration.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
98. However, the fact that in all the three appeals
before us the proceedings were finally held at New Delhi,
and the awards were signed in New Delhi, and not at
Faridabad, would lead to the conclusion that both parties
have chosen New Delhi as the “seat” of arbitration
under Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. This being
the case, both parties have, therefore, chosen that the Courts
at New Delhi alone would have exclusive jurisdiction over
the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the fact that a part of the
cause of action may have arisen at Faridabad would not be
relevant once the “seat” has been chosen, which would then
amount to an exclusive jurisdiction clause so far as Courts
of the “seat” are concerned.”
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
34. In Mankastu Impex Private Limited versus Airvisual Limited,
2020 (5) SCC 399, Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to various earlier
judgments including BGS SGS Soma JV’s case (Supra) observed that “seat of
arbitration” and “venue of arbitration” cannot be used inter-changeably and it
has also been established that mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be
the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that
place as the “seat” of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the “seat”
should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of
the parties. In this way, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid emphasis on the
“conduct of the parties” as well. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -51-
judgment in Mankastu Impex Private Limited‘s case (Supra) are reproduced
as under:-
“20. It is well settled that “seat of arbitration” and
“venue of arbitration” cannot be used inter changeably. It
has also been established that mere expression “place of
arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of
the parties that they have intended that place as the “seat”
of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the “seat”
should be determined from other clauses in the agreement
and the conduct of the parties.
21. In the present case, the arbitration agreement
entered into between the parties provides Hong Kong as the
place of arbitration. The agreement between the parties
choosing “Hong Kong” as the place of arbitration by itself
will not lead to the conclusion that parties have chosen
Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration. The words, “the place
of arbitration” shall be “Hong Kong”, have to be read
along with Clause 17.2. Clause 17.2 provides that
“….any dispute, controversy, difference arising out of or
relating to the MoU “shall be referred to and finally resolved
by arbitration administered in Hong Kong…..”. On a plain
reading of the arbitration agreement, it is clear that the
reference to Hong Kong as “place of arbitration” is not a
simple reference as the “venue” for the arbitral
proceedings; but a reference to Hong Kong is for final
resolution by arbitration administered in Hong Kong. The
agreement between the parties that the dispute “shall be
referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered
in Hong Kong” clearly suggests that the parties have agreed
that the arbitration be seated at Hong Kong and that laws of
Hong Kong shall govern the arbitration proceedings as well
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -52-
as have power of judicial review over the arbitration
award.”
35. An important distinguishable feature in the present cases is that the
arbitration conducted was in the nature of a statutory arbitration and it has been
conducted in pursuance of the provisions of Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the
National Highways Act, 1956 and is therefore purely in the nature of statutory
arbitration. There was no agreement between the parties to enable them to
choose any venue or seat of arbitration. Therefore, as to how the seat is to be
determined for the purpose of understanding the jurisdictional aspect, reference
will have to be again made to the provisions of Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the
National Highways Act, 1956, as well as to the aforesaid order dated
17.08.2015, whereby the Commissioner, Faridkot Division was appointed as the
Arbitrator for the present cases.
36. Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, provides that
if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either
of the parties, then the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties,
be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
This means for the purpose of appointment of an Arbitrator, the Statute has
delegated the powers to the Central Government. Consequent upon the
appointment of the Arbitrator by the Central Government, the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply by virtue of Section 3(G)(6) of the
National Highways Act, 1956. A perusal of the order dated 17.08.2015 passed
by the Central Government, as reproduced above, would show that the Central
Government appointed an Arbitrator and designation of the Officer so appointed
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -53-
as an Arbitrator is that of a Commissioner. The area of jurisdiction has been
defined in Column No.3, which pertains to the revenue districts which includes
Faridkot and Bathinda. Therefore, it is clear that the Officer appointed as the
Arbitrator by way of the aforesaid order of the Central Government is
mentioned in Column No.2, who is the Commissioner of the Division. There is
no express mention of any venue or seat in the aforesaid order. In the absence of
the same, the factual position pertaining to the conduct of the proceedings by
the Arbitrator attains utmost importance. It is an admitted position by all the
learned counsels for the parties that in pursuance of the aforesaid order issued
by the Central Government appointing the Commissioner of Faridkot Division
as the Arbitrator, all the proceedings were held at Faridkot and thereafter, the
award was also passed at Faridkot. There had been participation of all the
parties in the proceedings at Faridkot and therefore, although it was a statutory
arbitration and there was no express agreement between the parties pertaining to
the determination of a venue or seat but in the facts and circumstances, the
parties have by their conduct accepted the proceedings at Faridkot. Since in the
present cases, it was a case of statutory arbitration in which neither the Statute
nor the order passed in pursuance of the Statute defines any seat or venue, the
factual position pertaining to the place of conducting the arbitral proceedings as
well as the conduct of the parties becomes the determining factor. It is not a
case where during the arbitration proceedings any of the parties have raised any
objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction but on the contrary, it is a case of
post-award with all the parties having participated in the proceedings before the
learned Arbitrator at a particular place, which is Faridkot in the present cases.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -54-
37. Therefore, two factors will ascertain and determine the seat of
arbitration, where the venue has not been disputed. Firstly, all the proceedings
before the learned Arbitrator were held at Faridkot and secondly, the award was
passed and signed at Faridkot. Although Hon’ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS
Soma JV’s case (Supra) was dealing with a case pertaining to a jurisdictional
issue and in that case there was an agreement between the parties pertaining to
jurisdiction, which was stated to be New Delhi/Faridabad but the present cases
deal with statutory arbitration where there was no express determination of
venue or seat. However, the principle of law which has been settled by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV’s case (Supra) will be applicable to the
present cases. The principle of law being that where seat is not defined but the
venue has been defined and there is no other contrary indicia, the venue will
become the seat. In the present cases, the venue was at Faridkot and admittedly,
all the proceedings were held at Faridkot and thereafter, the award was passed
at Faridkot. There is no other contrary indicia and therefore, by applying the
aforesaid ratio, Faridkot would attain the status of “seat”, even in the case of the
arbitration being statutory in nature. The principles of law will remain the same.
38. Reference in this regard may also be made to the provisions of
Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, which is reproduced as under:-
“31(4) The arbitral award shall state its date and the
place of arbitration as determined in accordance with
section 20 and the award shall be deemed to have been made
at that place.”
A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that it has been so
provided that the arbitral award shall state its date and the place of arbitration as
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -55-
determined in accordance with Section 20 and the award shall be deemed to
have been made at that place. In this way, in the present cases, the arbitral
award has stated its date and place to be at Faridkot and therefore, by virtue of
Section 31(4) of the Act also, it shall be deemed to have been made at that place
i.e. Faridkot. This aspect has also been dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
BGS SGS Soma JV’s case (Supra) in paragraph No.45, as reproduced above. It
was observed that when parties, either by agreement or in default of there being
an agreement, where the arbitral tribunal determines a particular place as the
seat of the arbitration under Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, it
becomes clear that the parties having chosen the seat, or the arbitral tribunal
having determined the seat, have also chosen the Courts at the seat for the
purpose of interim orders and challenges to the award. Section 34 proceedings
are in the nature of a challenge to the award and therefore, by virtue of Section
31(4) of the Act, the arbitral award shall state its date and the place of
arbitration as determined in accordance with Section 20 of the Act and the
award shall be deemed to have been made at that place. In the present cases,
the award has been passed in Faridkot, which will therefore be considered to
be the place of arbitration, as determined in accordance with Section 20 of the
Act.
39. An argument was raised by the learned counsels for the
respondents that in view of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
Annexure P-6, Bathinda Court will have jurisdiction to hear the objections
under Section 34 of the Act and not Faridkot. The aforesaid argument raised by
the learned counsels for the respondents is misconceived. When a Coordinate
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -56-
Bench of this Court observed that the seat of arbitration will be at Faridkot and
therefore, the objections under Section 34 of the Act as well as the execution
will lie at Faridkot, the same was assailed before Hon’ble Supreme Court and
the SLPs were dismissed with the observation that since the objections under
Section 34 of the Act have been filed at Bathinda and the respondents have
raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction, the aspect of territorial
jurisdiction will not be influenced by any observations made in the impugned
judgment. In this way, there was no ratio decidendi laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court and rather the issue with regard to as to which Court will have
the territorial jurisdiction to hear the objections under Section 34 of the Act was
kept open. Consequently, when the Court at Bathinda, which had earlier
returned the objections to Faridkot, restored the same, it was not in accordance
with the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court, although reliance was
placed on the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. No such restoration
could have been permitted because there was no direction or observation by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Bathinda Court would have jurisdiction and
therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsels for the respondent-NHAI
is misconceived. It is a settled law that a judgment should be read as a whole so
that conflicting parts, if any, can be harmonised to reveal the true ratio of the
judgment. It is the ratio decidendi which becomes the precedent and is binding
upon other Courts. The aforesaid observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide Annexure P-6 with respect to territorial jurisdiction was not in the nature of
a ratio decidendi.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -57-
40. Another argument raised by the learned counsels for the
respondents was that the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the Government of
India only provides that the Officer mentioned in Column No.2, who is a
Divisional Commissioner, will be the Arbitrator for exercising powers within
the local limits of jurisdiction as mentioned in Column No.3 of the table and
since two different revenue districts have been mentioned in Column No.3, the
respective districts will also have territorial jurisdiction. This argument raised
by the learned counsels for the respondents is unsustainable. The revenue
districts which have been so specified in Column No.3 are only the places with
respect to which the learned Arbitrator, who is mentioned in Column No.2, is to
exercise jurisdiction. The present cases do not deal with the issue of territorial
jurisdiction with regard to the filing of execution but the subject matter of the
present cases pertains only to the territorial jurisdiction for filing objections
under Section 34 of the Act. For determination of the same, the juridical seat
has to be ascertained and for ascertaining the same, the test and the law laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be followed. In BGS SGS Soma JV’s
case (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law and the principles of
law laid down therein are binding upon this Court. Although the present cases
pertain to statutory arbitration but it is an admitted fact that the arbitration has
been conducted at Faridkot with the participation of all the parties and the
award has been passed at Faridkot and therefore, while applying the principles
of law laid down as aforestated, the venue and the seat of the arbitration is at
Faridkot. Once the aforesaid seat is so determined, the territorial jurisdiction of
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -58-
the Courts as a consequence also gets determined, which would be Faridkot and
not Bathinda.
41. It was further argued by the learned counsels for the respondents
that as per Section 20 of the Act, the parties are free to agree on the place of
arbitration and failing any such agreement, the place of arbitration will be
determined by the Arbitral Tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the
case, including the convenience of the parties but at the same time, by virtue of
Section 20(3) of the Act, the Arbitral Tribunal may meet at any place as it may
consider appropriate for the proceedings. It was also the argument of the
learned counsels for the respondents that the seat of the arbitration has not been
agreed between the parties because it is a statutory arbitration and therefore, the
venue will not become the seat. This argument is also misconceived in view of
the fact that the present cases deal with statutory arbitration, whereby there was
no agreement between the parties but the distinction between ordinary
consensual arbitration and statutory arbitration primarily lies in the source of
the reference and the mechanism for appointment of the Arbitrator. Once the
said appointment is made, the aforesaid distinction will not affect the manner in
which the arbitral proceedings are held as when the appointment is made, the
arbitral proceedings are thereafter governed by the Arbitration Act and the
applicable arbitral principles. Furthermore, by virtue of Section 20(2) of the
Act, which provides that failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (1),
the place of arbitration shall be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal having
regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the
parties, the learned Arbitrator held the proceedings at Faridkot, which is an
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -59-
admitted position and hence, the venue of the arbitration even under Section
20(2) of the Act was Faridkot. There was no other contrary indicia for
determination of the seat and therefore, the venue becomes the seat in
accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS
Soma JV’s case (Supra).
42. It was also argued by the learned counsels for the respondents that
in the absence of ascertainment of any venue or seat, the provisions of Sections
16 to 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply, whereby the place of the
cause of action is to be seen. This argument is also not available to the
respondents in view of the fact that in the present cases, in absence of any
contrary indicia, the venue has become the seat as aforementioned after all the
arbitral proceedings were held and award was passed at Faridkot itself as the
law with regard to the same is well settled that for the purpose of determining
the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the objections under Section 34 of the
Act, it is based upon the seat which is a juridical seat and once the seat has been
ascertained by the conduct of the parties and by passing of the award at
Faridkot, only the Courts at Faridkot will have the jurisdiction to entertain the
objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
43. Another argument raised by the learned counsels for the
respondents was that a large number of cases are already pending at Faridkot
and if the present cases are also sent to Faridkot, then it will cause hardship to
the Courts at Faridkot because all the cases of Faridkot and Bathinda will have
to be filed in Faridkot only which will increase the case load in the Court of
Faridkot, thereby giving rise to a practical difficulty in deciding the cases. This
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -60-
argument raised by the learned counsels for the respondents is also
unsustainable in view of the fact that hardship, if any, itself cannot constitute a
ground for changing the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. In case any conflict
arises between hardship on one hand and the territorial jurisdiction conferred by
law on the other hand, then it is the latter which will prevail.
CONCLUSION
44. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court to hear the objections under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shall be at Faridkot and not at Bathinda.
Therefore, the orders passed by the Court at Bathinda in 83 cases, as appended
in Schedule-‘A’, whereby the applications for restoration of objections under
Section 34 of the Act have been allowed, are hereby set aside and accordingly,
the aforesaid 83 cases stand allowed. With regard to the remaining 12 cases,
wherein the learned Court at Bathinda is entertaining the objections under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the same are disposed
of with a direction to the learned Court hearing the objections to return the same
to the respondents in order to enable them to file the same before the
appropriate Court at Faridkot in accordance with law.
45. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
46. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected
cases.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
20.04.2026
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
CHETAN THAKUR
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -61-
SCHEDULE-'A'
RESTORED OBJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
SR. NO. CASE NUMBER
1. CR-3884-2023
2. CR-5868-2023
3. CR-493-2024
4. CR-497-2024
5. CR-6152-2023
6. CR-498-2024
7. CR-499-2024
8. CR-500-2024
9. CR-1164-2024
10. CR-1173-2024
11. CR-1222-2024
12. CR-1277-2024
13. CR-629-2024
14. CR-691-2024
15. CR-1151-2024
16. CR-1302-2024
17. CR-1306-2024
18. CR-1341-2024
19. CR-1499-2024
20. CR-1502-2024
21. CR-1515-2024
22. CR-1536-2024
23. CR-1901-2024
24. CR-1880-2024
25. CR-1724-2024
26. CR-1727-2024
27. CR-2316-2024
28. CR-4053-2024
29. CR-4074-2024
30. CR-4114-2024
31. CR-3922-2024
32. CR-4639-2024
33. CR-4492-2024
34. CR-4979-2024
35. CR-2412-2024
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -62-
36. CR-2415-2024
37. CR-2423-2024
38. CR-2576-2024
39. CR-2596-2024
40. CR-2582-2024
41. CR-3491-2024
42. CR-3493-2024
43. CR-3496-2024
44. CR-3724-2024
45. CR-3814-2024
46. CR-3821-2024
47. CR-4009-2024
48. CR-4056-2024
49. CR-4060-2024
50. CR-2701-2024
51. CR-2749-2024
52. CR-2811-2024
53. CR-2700-2024
54. CR-7288-2024
55. CR-6242-2024
56. CR-6006-2024
57. CR-5961-2024
58. CR-1105-2024
59. CR-1116-2024
60. CR-7230-2024
61. CR-5976-2024
62. CR-6204-2024
63. CR-6270-2024
64. CR-6144-2024
65. CR-3374-2024
66. CR-4985-2024
67. CR-5548-2024
68. CR-5663-2024
69. CR-5906-2024
70. CR-5916-2024
71. CR-5917-2024
72. CR-5919-2024
73. CR-5928-2024
74. CR-5922-2024
75. CR-5924-2024
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -63-
76. CR-5925-2024
77. CR-7318-2024
78. CR-3203-2024
79. CR-3214-2024
80. CR-228-2025
81. CR-237-2025
82. CR-7399-2024
83. CR-766-2025
FRESH OBJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
SR. NO. CASE NUMBER
1. CR-4156-2023
2. CR-501-2024
3. CR-504-2024
4. CR-268-2024
5. CR-288-2024
6. CR-290-2024
7. CR-1788-2024
8. CR-4470-2024
9. CR-6878-2024
10. CR-4662-2024
11. CR-4668-2024
12. CR-4717-2024
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.04.20 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
