9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34. 3. The Appellant and the Respondent entered into a lease agreement dated 25 March 2000 in two sets, one for a trailer and another for a tractor. There was allegedly a default on the part of the Appellant in repaying the outstanding dues. Clause-33 of the agreement provided for a reference to arbitration in the following terms : Arbitration : 33. All disputes, differences, claims and questions, which may arise during the subsistence of this Agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee touching any matter covered by this Agreement shall be referred to the arbitration of two Arbitrators one to be appointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the claim of the Appellant was dismissed. The Appellant thereupon filed a petition under Section 34 before this Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. The learned Single Judge has adverted to Clause-33 of the lease agreement (already extracted earlier) and Clause-34 which is to the following effect : Jurisdiction : 34. Subject to the provisions of Clause-33 above, as a part of cause of action arises in Chennai it is agreed between the parties that in respect of any suit touching any matter, claims or disputes arising out of or in any way relating to this Agreement Chennai City Court alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction. 6. Before we consider the effect of Clause-34 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and the tribunal. This would be irrespective of the fact that the obligations to be performed under the contract were to be performed either at Mumbai or at Kolkata, and only arbitration is to take place in Delhi. In such circumstances, both the Courts would have jurisdiction, i.e. the Court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the suit is situated and the courts within the jurisdiction of which the dispute resolution i.e. arbitration is located. 7. The issue before the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium Co. (supra) was whether the provisions of Part-1 would apply to a foreign seated international commercial arbitration. The Supreme Court has held that Part-1 is applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. In the present case, the Respondent in fact did institute proceedings before the Madras High Court under Section 9, before the Appellant moved this Court in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. However, it is fairly stated before the Court by counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent did not press the proceedings under Section 9 before the Madras High Court. Hence, it is apparent that neither were the proceedings of the Appellant under Section 9 in this Court nor were the proceedings of the Respondent under Section 9 before Madras High Court pressed. Eventually it was the Appellant who filed proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, which were entertained by a learned Single Judge while appointing a sole arbitrator by an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
