9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cargo so discharged there were disputes and differences between the parties regarding freight and demurrage charges. Since the charter party agreement contained an arbitration clause; the parties referred the disputes to arbitration. The arbitration took place in Bombay. Arbitrators gave their award and filed it in the Bombay High Court. It is contended before us by the appellant that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to take the award on file or to issue any process in connection with it. The High Court in the impugned judgment, has upheld the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court on the ground that the appellant who is in the position of a defendant, has one of its places of business at Bombay. Under Section 2(c) of the Arb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has also a subordinate office at such place. In view of this Explanation the appellant under Section 20 is deemed to carry on business at its principal office in India. In respect of any cause of action which arises at a place where it has its subordinate office, the court at that place would also have jurisdiction. In view of this explanation, the Bombay High Court would not have jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. In this connection our attention was also drawn to a decision of this Court in Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971 (3) SCR 314), where this Court said that the Code of Civil Procedure in its entirety apples to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act by virtue of Section 41 of the Arbi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permit the appellant to file objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act against the said award. In the meanwhile on 1,2.1995 the award was filed in Bombay. Thereafter the appellant amended the application in Case No. 13/95 to ask for transfer of the award from Bombay to the. court at Jagatsinghpur, Application being Misc. Case 13/95 was rejected by the Court at Jagatsinghpur. It directed the appellant to file its objections in Bombay. We do not know whether anything further is pending in connection with that application. The appellant did not rely upon Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act either before the Bombay High Court or before us. The above facts were known to the appellant and were brought to the notice of the High Court. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
