9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and erstwhile non-applicant Company which has now merged in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. entered into an agreement for sale of lubricants and specialties and the applicant-Company was made as consignment agent of the non-applicant Company. In the said agreement, Clause 17.0 relates to arbitration. Within a span of few months, the applicant-Company had accumulated a large unsold stock under CA account due to slow and unwilling lifting of lubricant by retail outlets and market. Despite the fact that when the existing stock of lubricant could not be lifted by the applicant-Company, the IBP Company (now IOCL) forced the applicant-Company to add more fresh stock for retail outlets and market every month, which was not possible in any manner bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Company in his reply has raised two objections:- (i) There is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties in terms of Section 7 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) As per Clause No. 18 of Consignment Agency Agreement relating to the jurisdiction, the agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Kolkata. Therefore, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. 4. Counsel for the non-applicant Company submits that when certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. In support of which, counsel for the non-applicant Company has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 3 Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed. 6. In the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 107, Supreme Court has considered Section 28 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and further Section 2(c), 20, 31(3), (4) and 41 of Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. After detailed consideration of the said provision of law, in arbitration clause 31 and specified Ouster Clause in the Second purchase order dated 2.12.1987 wherein it has been mentioned that Ml disputes, differences or questions whatever which may arise between the purchaser and the supplier upon or in relation with or in connection with the contract shall be deemed to have arisen at Jaipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
