9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Existence of an Arbitration Agreement 2. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court 3. Maintainability of the Petition filed by a Sole Proprietorship Firm Detailed Analysis Existence of an Arbitration Agreement The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause under the special conditions of the contract after disputes arose regarding payment for the completed construction work. The respondents contested the existence of an arbitration agreement, arguing that the clause in the general conditions was scored off and the special conditions containing the arbitration clause were not signed by the parties. The court held that the arbitration agreement need not be signed if it is established by another written contemporaneous document. The court cited the Apex Court's decision in *Jugal Kishore Remeshwardas vs Goolbai Hormusji*, which stated that an unsigned arbitration agreement can still be binding if its terms are reduced to writing. Therefore, the court concluded that there was an arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1 but not between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court The respondents challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, asserting that the registered office of respondent No.1 is in Gurgaon, Haryana, under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court found that significant parts of the cause of action, including the issuance, submission, and acceptance of the tender, as well as subsequent negotiations, occurred in Delhi. Citing Section 4 of the Contract Act and relevant case law, the court held that a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, thereby granting the Delhi High Court jurisdiction. Maintainability of the Petition filed by a Sole Proprietorship Firm The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as it was filed in the name of a sole proprietorship firm, which is not a legal entity. The court agreed, stating that legal proceedings can only be initiated by a legal entity. The court referred to precedents such as *P C Advertising vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi* and *Miraj Marketing Corporation vs. Vishakha Engineering*, which held that a sole proprietorship firm cannot sue in its own name. The court noted that the petition should have been filed by the sole proprietor in his name on behalf of the sole proprietorship firm. Since the petition was filed in the name of the firm without seeking amendment to sue in the name of the sole proprietor, the court dismissed the petition as not maintainable. Conclusion The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was filed by a sole proprietorship firm, which is not a legal entity. The court also clarified that there was an arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1, but not with respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court was found to have jurisdiction over the matter. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
|
