Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (5) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is tender which was accepted by the General Manager, Railway Electrifi-cation, Allahabad, on 24th July, 1992. The aforesaid acceptance letter is dated 24th July, 1992 and the same is annexed as 'Annexure 1' to the reply submitted by the respondents. 3. An agreement was entered into between the parties for commissioning of 5 tonne capacity Diesel Hydraulic Cranes 3 numbers. The said Agree-ment was signed at Allahabad. In the petition it is stated that disputes having arisen between the parties while executing the aforesaid contract, the said disputes are required to be adjudicated upon and decided by appointing an arbitrator. It is also contended that the work was executed at Tughlakabad Railway gravel siding, New Delhi, and that the partie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ition clear. The agreement between the parties for the aforesaid work was also signed at Allahabad. The petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the petitioner executed the work at Tughlakabad Railway gravel siding, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, which is located within the jurisdiction of this Court and also because the respon-dents have their office at Delhi. 7. The tender papers pursuant to which tender was submitted by the petitioner define the expression "General Manager" to mean the Officer in Administrative Charge of Railway Electrification and shall mean and include the Officers to whom the functions are delegated. The expression "Railway Administration" is also defined therein. The said ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave jurisdiction to decide a particular dispute, the parties by their conduct and action can vest the exclusive jurisdiction on one of the several Courts which may have jurisdiction over the subject- matter. The aforesaid position is by now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart P. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239. In paragraph 18 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen there within, if the parties to the contract agree to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves, the agreement would be valid. The rati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of India v. Electronic Controls & Instrument Engineers [1997] 68 DLT 739. In the said judgment, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court in Bakhtawar Singh Balkrishan v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1003, which fully approved the decision in Binani Bros. Ltd. v. Union of India [1975] 2 ILR 196 (Delhi), the decision of Full Bench in Shri Ram Rattan Bhartia's case (supra), cannot be said to be holding the field. 13. In this connection, reference is also to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co. AIR 1992 SC 1514. In the said decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Explanation to section 20 of the Code showing that the Explanation cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Arbitration LR 6. In the said decision, it was held that the principal place of business cannot be made to depend on each tender for it is well known that tenders are issued by various authorities depending upon their respective financial powers. It was further held that principal place of business must be a regular, fixed place independent of each tender and that it may be noted that under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure where a notice has to be given it is provided that in the case of the suit where it relates to the railways, the General Manager of that railway is the competent authority to receive notice. Having decided thus, the Full Bench proceeded to hold that in that view, if any suit is to be filed notice has to be given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates