9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 779 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Court at Bombay alone had jurisdiction over the dispute? Held that - The learned Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court misread and misinterpreted the provisions of sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 31 of the Act and thereby arrived at a wrong finding to the effect that by virtue of the aforesaid provision of Section 31(4) the Calcutta High Court would have jurisdiction in the matter. It is only the Court at Jaipur which will have jurisdiction to try and decide the arbitration proceedings between the parties and also entertain a petition of the aforesaid nature i.e. Section 20 of the Act, we set aside and quash the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. 2. Validity and applicability of the forum selection clause in the agreements. 3. Interpretation of Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court: The primary contention revolved around whether the Calcutta High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant argued that only the Court at Jaipur had jurisdiction based on the forum selection clauses in the agreements. The respondent contended that Section 31(4) of the Act granted jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court since the first application was made there. 2. Validity and Applicability of the Forum Selection Clause: The agreements between the parties included explicit forum selection clauses stating that any disputes arising would be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Jaipur. The Supreme Court reiterated that such clauses are valid and binding if they are clear, unambiguous, and specific, as established in precedents like A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies and Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd. The Court emphasized that the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction of Jaipur courts, thus excluding other courts, including the Calcutta High Court, from entertaining disputes arising from the agreements. 3. Interpretation of Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940: The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had interpreted Section 31(4) to mean that since the respondent first filed an application in the Calcutta High Court, it alone had jurisdiction over subsequent arbitration proceedings. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 31(4) must be read in conjunction with the forum selection clause agreed upon by the parties. The Court clarified that Section 31(4) does not override a valid forum selection clause, especially when the parties had explicitly agreed to confer jurisdiction on a specific court. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the forum selection clause in the agreements was valid and binding, making the courts at Jaipur the competent jurisdiction for any disputes arising from the agreements. Consequently, the Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was set aside, and the case was directed to be transferred to the District Judge, Jaipur. Directions: 1. The Registry of the Calcutta High Court was instructed to transfer the petition filed under Section 20 of the Act to the District Judge, Jaipur. 2. The District Judge, Jaipur, was directed to allocate the petition to the appropriate court for further proceedings in accordance with the law.
|
