Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010144202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.P./26/2025 M/S BHARTIA INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI AVINASH BHARTIA, HAVING ITS PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 201 ROYAL ARCADE, DR. B. BARUAH ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007 VERSUS M/S VISHWA SAMUDRA ENGINEERING PVT LTD HAVING ITS PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 8TH AND 9TH FLOOR, VAMSIRAM JYOTHI VALENCIA, ROAD NO. 2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500034, TELANGANA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R HUSSAIN, MR A A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : N.R. SHARMA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 20.07.2026 Heard Mr. R Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. NR Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. Page No.# 2/4 2. This Arbitration Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator. However, the respondents had filed similar petition before the Telangana High Court by which the Telangana High Court by orders dated 02.04.2026 and 27.02.2026 passed in Arb. Appl. No.101/2025 had referred the dispute to the Arbitrator. These orders were assailed by the petitioner before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.19870-19871/2026. These SLPs came to be dismissed by order dated 15.06.2026. The said order is extracted below: “1. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and orders dated 02.04.2026 and 27.02.2026 passed by the Telangana High Court referring the dispute to arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The short issue which is raised before us is that the Telangana High Court did not have jurisdiction to make such reference and that the Gauhati High Court was the appropriate forum. The work order had been issued from Guwahati and the entire work was to be executed there. As the cause of action had arisen in Guwahati, petitioner had approached Gauhati High Court for appointment of arbitrator. Telangana High Court failed to consider the law laid down in Arif Azim Company Limited versus Micromax Informatics FZE reported in 2025 (9) SCC 750 and erroneously allowed the Section 11 application, on the ground that it was filed earlier. 3. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. Relevant arbitration clause reads as follows: Page No.# 3/4 “ARBITRATION: Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to or in connection with this Agreement, or the breach, termination or validity hereof shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification therein. Any dispute shall be settled by arbitration presided by a sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator shall be an independent person and shall be mutually appointed by the Parties. The Seat and Venue of the arbitration shall be Hyderabad, Telangana state or Guwahati, Assam state, and the language used in the arbitral proceedings shall be English. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Republic of India and courts in Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to or arising from this agreement." 4. A holistic reading of the clause would show that though twin Seat/Venue of arbitration, that is, either “Hyderabad, Telangana state or Guwahati, Assam State” is prescribed, the subsequent part of the clause unequivocally states that the courts in Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to or arising from this agreement. In paragraph 77.10 of Arif Azim Company Limited (supra), a three Judge Bench of this Court held if two or more possible places are designated as seat, the principles of forum non conveniens would apply. Such proposition of law though unexceptionable is inapplicable in the facts where the parties have themselves agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Hyderabad in the arbitration clause itself. Party autonomy being of primary importance in interpretation of the arbitration agreement, we are of the considered view, the ratio in Arif Azim Company Limited (supra) is factually distinguishable where the supervisory jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court over the arbitration is clearly discernible from the clause itself. 5. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 3. Considering that the Apex Court has upheld the appointment of the learned Arbitrator by the High Court of Telangana in Arbitration Application No. Page No.# 4/4 101 of 2025 by its orders dated 27.02.2026 and 02.04.2026 and the arbitrator having been already appointed, this arbitration petition has become infructous. 4. Accordingly the arbitration petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant