The High Court at Calcutta, sitting in the Commercial Division, dismissed a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. The decision clarifies that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the arbitration agreement prevails over the statutory venue of the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for post-award proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/S. INNOVEL ENERGY SERVICES PVT. LTD. (PREVIOUSLY: ENVIRON SOLAR PVT. LTD.), entered into a service agreement with the respondent, ELEVAR DIGITEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, on 18.01.2017. The agreement, later amended and extended till 31.01.2020, involved electrical and technical maintenance of telecom sites in West Bengal. The parties agreed that any dispute would be arbitrated by the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (WBMSEFC) in Kolkata and that the courts at New Delhi would have exclusive jurisdiction over any proceedings arising from the arbitration.
Key Facts
- 18.01.2017: Service agreement executed between the parties.
- 23.09.2022: Petitioner changed its name from Environ Solar Pvt. Ltd. to Innovel Energy Services Pvt. Ltd.
- 17.10.2024: Respondent changed its name from M/s. ATC Telecom Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. to Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Private Limited.
- 27.07.2026: Court allowed amendment of the cause title to reflect the respondent’s new name.
- 09.03.2021: Petitioner filed an application under the “Samadhaan” portal of the WBMSEFC, registered as Case No. 212 of 2021, claiming non-payment of twenty invoices amounting to Rs. 64,84,061.
- 15.02.2023: Conciliation proceedings held on six occasions concluded in failure.
- 19.04.2023: Respondent filed its statement of defence, admitting the principal claim but disputing the availability of supporting documents.
- 10.12.2024: Last hearing of the arbitral proceedings.
- 18.09.2025: WBMSEFC passed a detailed arbitral award allowing claims of Rs. 54,23,416, Rs. 5,29,540, and Rs. 2,33,709, while disallowing Rs. 2,97,937 and interest of Rs. 30,95,819.
- 25.03.2023 & 03.04.2023: Respondent’s communications seeking extensions.
- 04.04.2023: Council granted extension of the arbitral timeline.
- 10.09.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner sought a post-award extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the statutory venue of the WBMSEFC did not defeat the court’s jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e). The respondent contended that the exclusive jurisdiction clause to the courts at New Delhi governed all post-award proceedings and that Section 29A did not apply to the reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for a post-award extension of time for the completion and disposal of the arbitral reference, and for the court to entertain the application under Section 29A.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Calcutta High Court, under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Section 29A application for a post-award extension, given that the parties had agreed that the courts at New Delhi would have exclusive jurisdiction over any proceedings arising from the arbitration.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Harcharan Dass Gupta v. Union of India and Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. to argue that the statutory jurisdiction of the WBMSEFC under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006, did not override the exclusive jurisdiction clause. The counsel also cited C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera to contend that a Section 29A application remains maintainable even after the award has been rendered.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel invoked Gammon Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Sahay Industries and Ircon International Ltd. v. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. to assert that the court specified in the arbitration agreement - namely the courts at New Delhi - remains the competent forum for all post-award proceedings. The counsel further relied on a coordinate bench decision of this Court in Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. Techniche Consulting Service to reinforce that the location of the WBMSEFC does not confer jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court distinguished between the statutory jurisdiction of the WBMSEFC to conduct the arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act and the jurisdiction of a court to entertain proceedings arising from the arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It held that while the MSMED Act overrides any inconsistent contractual arrangement for the conduct of the arbitration, it does not, by itself, determine the territorial jurisdiction of the court after the award has been rendered.
The present application under Section 29A, being a proceeding arising in relation to the arbitral reference and the Award, having been instituted before this Court contrary to the agreed exclusive jurisdiction clause, is not maintainable before this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the parties had expressly agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts at New Delhi. The fact that the arbitral proceedings were conducted by the WBMSEFC at Kolkata does not override this agreement. Consequently, the application was dismissed as lacking jurisdiction.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable before the Calcutta High Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. No post-award extension was granted. The petitioner must pursue any remedy in the courts at New Delhi as per the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Clarity Post-Award
- The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the arbitration agreement governs post-award proceedings, regardless of the statutory venue of the arbitration.
- Parties should ensure that the jurisdiction clause is clearly drafted to avoid later disputes.
Section 29A Applicability Limited
- Section 29A does not automatically apply to post-award extensions when an exclusive jurisdiction clause exists.
- A Section 29A application must be filed before the court specified in the arbitration agreement.
Coordination Bench Precedents
- Coordinate bench decisions reinforce that the court named in the arbitration agreement remains the competent forum for all post-award challenges.
- The location of the statutory arbitration body does not alter the court’s jurisdiction after the award.
