9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Analysis: The appellant, Korba Super Thermal Power Project, filed an appeal against the order of a learned single Judge holding that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit under the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making an award a rule of the court. The contract between the parties was awarded for a project at Korba, with all significant actions and payments occurring at Korba. The arbitrator held sittings in Delhi for convenience, but no cause of action arose in Delhi. The appellant argued that since the entire cause of action arose at Korba and NTPC had a subordinate office there, Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction. The respondent, Radha Madhav Engg. Enterprises, relied on various judgments to support Delhi's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's interpretation of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Patel Roadways Ltd.'s case was crucial. The Court clarified that if a corporation has a principal office and a subordinate office, and the cause of action arises at the place of the subordinate office, the suit should be filed at that location. In this case, as the entire cause of action arose at Korba, where the subordinate office was located, Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction despite NTPC's principal office being in Delhi. The judgment in Shri Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India was deemed irrelevant due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Patel Roadways Ltd.'s case. Other judgments cited by the respondent were also found inapplicable to the present case. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the learned single Judge's judgment and directing the return of the award and related documents to the arbitrator for filing before the appropriate court in Korba. The decision was based on the clear interpretation of section 20 and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of the location where the cause of action arises in determining jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
|
