J&K ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY versus RASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 15-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 210 : 2026 INSC 368
J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency  
v. 
Rash Builders India Private Limited
(Civil Appeal No. 4461 of 2026)
15 April 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains whether, despite an express designation of Srinagar 
as seat of arbitration, the conduct of proceedings and rendering of 
the award at New Delhi would confer jurisdiction upon courts at New 
Delhi; and the distinction between the seat and venue of arbitration, 
and consequent determination of supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.
Headnotes†
Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 – s.34 – 
Juridical seat of arbitration – Appellant engaged respondent-
contractor for execution of road projects – Disputes between 
the parties regarding the contractual claims – Respondent 
invoked arbitration, and filed separate applications u/s.11 for 
the appointment of a sole arbitrator for each project – High 
Court appointed the former District and Sessions Judge as 
sole arbitrator – This Court, having regard to the value of the 
contracts, modified the High Court order and appointed former 
Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator in substitution of the 
previously appointed arbitrator – Arbitral Tribunal, with the 
consent of the parties, fixed Srinagar as the seat of arbitration 
and New Delhi as the venue – Upon the demise of the sole 
arbitrator, the High Court appointed another former Judge of 
this Court, as the sole arbitrator to continue proceedings – 
Arbitral award delivered in New Delhi – Applications u/s.33 
filed by appellant subsequently decided – Appellant then filed 
petition u/s.34 before the High Court seeking to set aside 
the arbitral award insofar as it related to Shahdra Project – 
Respondent raised preliminary objection regarding territorial 
jurisdiction – High Court returned the petition, holding that 
since the arbitration proceedings were conducted and the 
award was rendered at New Delhi, the courts at New Delhi 
alone had jurisdiction – Correctness:
* Author
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 
211
J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v.  
Rash Builders India Private Limited
Held: Not only have the parties expressly agreed upon Srinagar as 
seat of arbitration, but even the surrounding circumstances reinforce 
this – Contracts executed in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and 
the works were to be carried out within the said State – Arbitration 
proceedings were initiated in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 
the High Court had appointed the arbitrator – These factors as well 
as the ‘closest and most intimate connection test’ unmistakably 
anchors the arbitration at Srinagar – Submission that arbitral award 
records New Delhi as place of arbitration and is thus, determinative 
of the seat cannot be accepted – Seat of arbitration is governed 
by the agreement of the parties and not by any stray recital in the 
award – Once the seat of arbitration is fixed, it remains immutable 
unless altered by an express agreement – In the absence of any 
agreement, the designation of Srinagar as seat of the arbitration 
continues to hold the field – High Court ought to have appreciated 
that Srinagar was consciously designated as the seat of arbitration – 
Once such a designation was made, the legal consequence that 
inexorably follows is that courts at Srinagar alone would have 
supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding – Mere fact that 
arbitral tribunal for reasons of convenience, conducted proceeding 
at New Delhi or rendered the award at that place does not and 
cannot, alter the juridical seat of arbitration – Approach adopted by 
the High Court, if upheld, would have the effect of rendering the 
concept of juridical seat otiose, and would introduce uncertainty in 
arbitration proceeding by allowing the place of hearing or the place 
where the award is signed to determine the jurisdiction – Such a 
consequence would be contrary to principles of party autonomy 
and legal certainty – Impugned order cannot be sustained – Court 
at Srinagar being the court of seat of arbitration, alone possesses 
the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the challenge to the arbitral 
award – Impugned order quashed and set aside – Proceeding 
u/s.34 restored. [Paras 19-24]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.20 – Principles 
governing the distinction between the seat and venue of the 
arbitration, and the jurisdictional consequences:
Held: Seat of arbitration constitutes th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.