[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India ... on 22 December, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:25813
Megha 26_arbp_351 & 346_2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.351 OF 2024
Shivshakti Enterprises through
proprietor-Vinod Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
V/s.
Nuclear Power Corporation of India ...Respondent
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.346 OF 2024
Vinod Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
V/s.
Nuclear Power Corporation of India ...Respondent
______________
Mr. Hussain Dholkawala for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rohit P. Karhadkar for the Respondent.
______________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 22 DECEMBER 2025.
P.C.:
1) Heard Mr. Dholkawala, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners and Mr. Rohit P. Karhadkar, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent in both the Petitions.
2) An objection of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain the present Arbitration Petitions is raised on behalf the
Respondent- Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.(NPCL).
22 December 2025
Megha 26_arbp_351 & 346_2024.docx
3) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, at the
outset raised a preliminary objection that the Respondent cannot be
permitted to raise the objection of territorial jurisdiction since the
Arbitration Petitions were partly heard by the previous Bench after
being listed on as many as 16 different occasions. He relies upon
judgment of this Court in Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani and Others
V/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Another 1
4) Careful perusal of the judgment in Naresh Kanayalal
Rajwani (supra) would indicate that, there was first round of
arbitration in that case, which has led to an arbitral Award being
challenged before Section 34 Court in which, objection of territorial
jurisdiction was not raised by the Respondent therein. After Award was
set aside, fresh arbitration proceedings were initiated culminating into
second arbitral Award, which was challenged before this Court.
Objection of territorial jurisdiction was raised before this Court for the
first time in second round. It is in these peculiar circumstances, this
Court held that objection of territorial jurisdiction was not raised at the
earliest point of time and that the same could not be raised in
subsequent proceedings. Thus, judgment in Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani
(supra) cannot be relied upon in support of an abstract proposition that
in every case the Court must ignore the objection of lack of territorial
jurisdiction on the ground that the same was not raised at initial
hearing of the Petition. It is well settled position of law that a judgment
is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically
deduced therefrom. The facts in Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani are thus
Com. Arb. Petition (L) No.1444 of 2019, decided on 23 November 2020
22 December 2025
Megha 26_arbp_351 & 346_2024.docx
clearly distinguishable, where this Court held that objection of
territorial jurisdiction could not have been raised in subsequent
Arbitration Petition as it was not raised in the previous arbitration
proceedings. In the present case, the Respondent has raised the
objection of territorial jurisdiction by filing additional affidavit dated
13 November 2025. Thus, the judgment in Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani
is clearly distinguishable.
5) There is no dispute to the position that arbitral Awards
involved in both the Petitions are made at Boisar (District -Palghar).
The place of arbitration was at Boisar. The learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioners submits that arbitration clause is silent about the seat
of arbitration and relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Jindal
Vijayanagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) V/s. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co.
Ltd.2 in support of his contention that under clause 12 of the Letters
Patent, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit if one of the
Respondents resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
irrespective of the fact whether cause of action arises in the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court or not. He would submit that since the Suit is
maintainable in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Petition filed
under Section 34 would also be maintainable considering the peculiar
definition of the term 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, much water has flown after the
judgment of the Apex Court in Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (supra).
Learned Single Judge of this Court has taken note of development of
law on the subject in Omprakash Ramnivas Varma and Others V/s.
. After taking into consideration the
(2006) 11 SCC 521
2020 DGLS(Bom.) 147
22 December 2025
Megha 26_arbp_351 & 346_2024.docx
judgments of the Apex Court in Bharat Aluminum Co. v. Kaiser
Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (Balco Judgment)4 and BGS SGS
SOMA JV v. NHPC Ltd., 5 this Court has held in paragraph 26 as
under:-
26. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners
cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the arbitrator would
have to undertake the exercise of "determination" only if there
was failure of agreement between the parties on the place of
arbitration or that there was a dispute or controversy between the
parties on the said question. Merely, because there was no specific
place of arbitration specified in the arbitration clause in the
present case, it did not follow that the learned arbitrator was first
required to determine the place of arbitration and in the absence
of such exercise, the place where the arbitration proceedings
actually took place and the award was rendered could not be said
to be the place of arbitration under section 20 of the aforesaid
Act. Sub-section (1) of section 20 of the said Act specifies that the
parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. This does not
mean that the place of arbitration must necessarily be specified
only in the arbitration clause. The parties could clearly agree to a
place of arbitration even in the absence of such a place being
specified in the arbitration clause. This could be ascertained from
the conduct of the parties also. In the present case, it is an
admitted position that there was no dispute or controversy
between the parties as regards Nagpur being the place of
arbitration. Both parties appeared before the learned arbitrator
appointed by this Court, at Nagpur and when the proceedings
were initiated before the learned Arbitrator at Nagpur, neither of
the parties raised any objection or dispute or controversy with
regard to the place of arbitration being Nagpur.
(Emphasis added)
6) Therefore, even if the arbitration clause is silent about seat
of arbitration, parties can agree for the place of arbitration even by
their conduct. In the present case, there is no dispute to the position
that place of arbitration /seat of arbitration was at Boisar (District-
Palghar). In that view of the matter, this Court would lack territorial
(2012) 9 SCC 552
SCC OnLine SC 1585
22 December 2025
Megha 26_arbp_351 & 346_2024.docx
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Petitions. Arbitration
Petitions are accordingly rejected. Petitioners would be at liberty to
present the Arbitration Petitions before the Court having territorial
jurisdiction.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 22 December 2025
Date: 22/12/2025 18:11:41
