9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Court to decide the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising between the parties regarding a contract for commissioning Diesel Hydraulic Cranes. The petitioner claimed that the work was executed in New Delhi, where both parties resided and worked, giving this Court territorial jurisdiction. 2. The respondents contended that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction, arguing that as per the contract terms, the Court at the place of the acceptance of the tender (Allahabad) had exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes. They emphasized that the acceptance of the tender and the agreement execution both took place in Allahabad, as per the contract terms. 3. The Court noted that the contract specified that the Court at the place of tender acceptance would have jurisdiction over any disputes. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause, but the General Manager in Allahabad rejected the request, stating that the cancellation of the agreement was not arbitrable. 4. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that parties could vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular Court through their conduct. The Court cited a Supreme Court decision stating that where multiple Courts may have jurisdiction, parties could agree to vest jurisdiction in one Court, which would be valid. 5. The Court analyzed various legal decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and Full Bench decisions of the High Court, to determine jurisdiction based on the principal office of the defendant. It was concluded that the Court in Allahabad had territorial jurisdiction over the dispute, not the Court in Delhi where the work was executed. 6. Ultimately, the Court held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the petition and directed the petitioner to file the case in the appropriate Court. The issue of whether the disputes were referable to arbitration was not addressed due to the lack of jurisdiction of the present Court. 7. The judgment concluded by stating that the petition was disposed of according to the order, leaving the issue of arbitrability of disputes raised by the respondents open for determination by the appropriate Court.
|
