Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040014592025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Arb. Appeal No. 02(AP)/2025 Joint Stock Company IA Vozrozhdenie, through its Director, Mr. Hoshiar Singh Dahiya, aged about 75 years, A- 11, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi- 110049. …APPELLANT -VERSUS- 1. State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The Chief Engineer, Highway Zone, Public Works Department, Government. Of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 3. The Executive Engineer, Ziro Highway Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh- 791120 4. M/S Hachang Tachang, through its Sole Proprietor, Mr. Hachang Tachang, Lower Model Village, P.O./P.S. Naharlagun, District Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh- 791110. 5. Tanor Engineering, through its Sole Proprietor, Mr. Dilling Tatak, P. Sector, Itanagar, District Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh- 791110. …RESPONDENTS Page No.# 2/8 Advocates for the appellant : Mr. A. Jain, Sr. Cl. Mr. A. Maheshwari Mr. S. Mukherjee Advocates for the respondents :Ms. P. Sangeeta, G.A. Mr. R. Saikia, for R-2 & 3 Mr. A. Henry, for R-4 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER 28.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Maheshwari and Mr. Shashwat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent No. 1; Mr. R. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, PWD Highways for respondent Nos. 2 & 3; and Mr. A. Henry, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed assailing the order dated 04.06.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia in Arbitration No. 02/2025, filed by the respondent No. 4 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereby an ad- interim order in favour of the respondent No. 4 and against the appellant has been passed restraining the appellant from realizing any further bills from Page No.# 3/8 respondent No. 1, i.e. the Public Works Department/Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways (MORTH), being the project owner. 3. The case in brief is that the appellant- Joint Stock Company IA Vozrozhdenie is a body corporate incorporated in the Russian Federation having its registered Office at Saint-Petersburg, Russia. On 09.07.2020, the Central Government awarded the project titled “Construction of 2-lane road of Potin to Panging section of NH-13 from Km 163.59 to Km 206.66 (Package-5) in the State of Arunachal Pradesh under the Arunachal Pradesh Package of Roads and Highways of SARDP-NE” to the appellant for a total contract value of Rs. 334.985 Crores. Pursuant thereto, a contract was executed on 09.10.2020 between the Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways (MORTH), as the employer, and the appellant as the EPC contractor. 4. The Joint Stock Company IA Vozrozhdenie India Private Limited, as the subsidiary of the appellant, and is engaged in the business of engineering, procurement and construction of industrial projects within and outside India including the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels, waterways, water cutting projects, airports, smart cities and other infrastructure projects etc., has been engaged by the appellant as the executing arm for implementation of the project in India. Owing to the magnitude of the project, once the project was awarded to the appellant, the appellant through its said subsidiary- Joint Stock Company IA Vozrozhdenie India Private Limited arranged for sub-contracting a portion of the works to the respondent No. 5, i.e. M/s Tanor Engineering, through a Sub-Contract Agreement dated 25.09.2022, which was subsequently, renewed/revised on 29.11.2022. 5. It is projected that respondent No. 4, M/s Hachang Tachang, had a limited role in the project as Project Manager, appointed at the instance of M/s Tanor Page No.# 4/8 Engineering in terms of Clause 34 of the Sub-Contract Agreement, which was duly approved by the appellant. For facilitating site operations, the appellant had provided its official seal to M/s Tanor Engineering, which was subsequently handed over to respondent No. 4. 6. The respondent No. 4 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the learned District Judge, Yupia seeking interim measures against the appellant based on an alleged agreement said to contain an arbitration clause. It has been alleged that the appellant owed certain amounts to respondent No. 4 under the said agreement. 7. By an impugned order dated 04.06.2025, the learned District Judge, Yupia granted ad-interim relief in favour of the respondent No. 4 restraining the appellant from realizing any further bills from the project owner, i.e. respondent No. 1/PWD Department/ Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways (MORTH), till the next date of hearing. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this present appeal. 8. Mr. A. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, referring to the provisions under Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Section 2 (1)(e) and (f)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, submits that since the appellant is a body corporate which is incorporated as M/S Joint Stock Company Industrial Association Vozrozhdenie in Russian Federation having its registered Office at Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation, the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable as in the case of international commercial arbitration, it is the High Court having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject matter of the arbitration. The learned District Court has no jurisdiction to decide the questions as the same would lie before the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from Page No.# 5/8 decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 is not permissible to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Court. Consequently, the ad-interim order dated 04.06.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia, is without jurisdiction and non-est in the eyes of law. 9. Mr. A. Henry, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, fairly submits that in view of the clear provisions as provided under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act may not lie before the District Court, however same shall lie before the High Court. Therefore, he prays that liberty be granted to the respondent No. 4 to approach the appropriate forum as permissible under law. 10. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant provisions of law. 11. Although no determination is required to be made in view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act in respect of international commercial arbitration, I deem it apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of law for a just conclusion, which are reproduced herein below: Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 “2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–– … (c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of–– … (vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders.” Page No.# 6/8 Section 2(1)(e)(f)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 “2. Definitions.—(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,— … [(e) “Court” means— (i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes; (ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court;] (f) “international commercial arbitration” means an arbitration relating to disputes arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India and where at least one of the parties is— … (ii) a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India.” 12. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that in case of international commercial arbitration, the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decrees of courts subordinate to that Court would have jurisdiction to decide the matter and as per Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, any international commercial arbitration, all applications arising out of such arbitration shall be heard and decided by the Commercial Division having been constituted in such High Court. Page No.# 7/8 13. Page No.# 7/8 13. The Court which would have jurisdiction as regards an international commercial arbitration, award would be in the event of the Court exercising ordinary original jurisdiction and in all other cases, the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appears from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court. 14. It is settled position of law that a decision rendered by a Court on the merits of the controversy in favour of the plaintiff without first adjudicating on its competence to decide such controversy would amount to a decision being rendered on an illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and therefore would be assailable as lacking in inherent jurisdiction and be treated as a nullity in the eye of law. As a logical corollary, the order passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio and same is not sustainable. 15. Having considered the relevant provisions of law and the fair submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the learned District Judge, Yupia has wrongly exercised his jurisdiction not conferred upon by the law as the matter pertains to international commercial arbitration, for which the appropriate forum for entertaining a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of subordinate to the High Court. 16. In view of above, the petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed by the respondent No. 4 before the District Court, Yupia, is not maintainable and the consequential impugned order dated 04.06.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia in Arbitration No. 02/2025, is a nullity and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. 17. However, it is made clear that the respondent No. 4 is at liberty to Page No.# 8/8 approach the appropriate forum/Court as may be permissible under the law. 18. Arbitration appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant