Back to feed
IndiaCivil
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd vs M/S Gsco (Gurmeet Singh And Company) ...
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Sep 23, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1038
- Judges
- Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Sachdeva
AI breakdown
- The dispute is about whether Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd's challenge to an arbitration award should be heard in the District Court of Sundargarh or Cuttack.
- The Supreme Court decided that the District Court in Sundargarh does have jurisdiction to hear the petition.
- The key reason was that the contract disputes substantially arose in Sundargarh, not just where the arbitration convened.
Outcome
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court dated 20.06.2025 holding that the petition filed by the Appellants, under Section 34 of the Act before the Court of the District Judge, Sundargarh, was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and also being time barred is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd
Respondent
M/S Gsco (Gurmeet Singh And Company) ...
Judgment text (excerpt)
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd vs M/S Gsco (Gurmeet Singh And Company) ... on 23 September, 2026
2026 INSC 1038
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 2 1 3 7 5 O F 2 0 2 5 )
MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ORS. .…. APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
M/S GSCO (GURMEET SINGH AND COMPANY)
INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ..…RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Subject appeal impugns judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 12707 of 2024, whereby the High Court has
allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India and thereby held that the petition under Section
34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 filed by the Appellants was
Signature Not Verified
not maintainable. The High Court has held that the petition filed under Section
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.09.23
17:01:53 IST
Reason:
1
‘Act’ for short
1
34 of the Act before the Court of the District Judge, Sundargarh, was not
maintainable for want of jurisdiction and also being time barred.
3. On 07.11.2012, a tender was issued by the Appellants for hiring of
HEMM (Shovel, Drill, Dozer etc.) for transfer and transportation of materials
in various strata including drilling, excavation, dumping spreading dozing
and other allied works in specified areas of dumping as per the instructions
of project officer/management of Kulda OCP, Basundhara – Garjanbahal
areas of MCL at …
Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.