Ranchi, September 4, 2026: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the state Road Construction Department challenging Delhi as the seat of arbitration in its dispute with Ramky Infrastructure Limited.
A single bench of Justice Ananda Sen held that the department had participated in the arbitral proceedings without raising a timely objection to the tribunal’s decision to designate Delhi as the seat. By continuing to participate in the proceedings, the department lost its right to subsequently challenge the tribunal’s decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court observed that the seat of arbitration constitutes the legal home of an arbitration. It determines the procedural law applicable to the proceedings and identifies the courts that exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration. According to the court, the seat cannot ordinarily be altered midway through the arbitral process.
Dispute dates back to 2010 road project agreement
The dispute originates from a 2010 agreement concerning the rehabilitation and upgradation of the Barhet-Sahibganj section of the Govindpur-Sahibganj State Highway project.
The agreement provided that arbitration proceedings would be conducted at the conference building of the ministry in Ranchi. However, the contract specified the location of the proceedings without expressly identifying the legal seat of arbitration.
An arbitral tribunal constituted in September 2023 subsequently designated Delhi as the seat of arbitration during its first procedural hearing, in the presence of representatives of both sides. The tribunal also clarified that the venue of individual proceedings could be decided from time to time.
The state did not object to the tribunal’s decision at that stage and continued participating in the proceedings.
The dispute over jurisdiction arose later when Ramky Infrastructure approached the Delhi High Court seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate. Although the state questioned the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the court extended the tribunal’s tenure by one year.
The state subsequently challenged the tribunal’s decision to treat Delhi as the seat of arbitration and eventually approached the Jharkhand High Court.
Court finds state’s stand contradictory
The Jharkhand High Court found the state’s later objection inconsistent with its earlier conduct.
The court noted that the state had not challenged the tribunal’s decision for nearly two and a half years and had continued to participate in its proceedings. It also held that after seeking to benefit from the Delhi High Court’s order extending the tribunal’s tenure, the state could not selectively challenge the observations concerning Delhi’s jurisdiction in the same proceedings.
On these grounds, the High Court rejected the Road Construction Department’s petition and upheld Delhi as the seat of arbitration in the dispute.
