AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(1) This revision is directed against an order dated 1671976 of the Distrist Judge, Jammu, deciding the question of jurisdiction in an application
under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, against the petitioner.
(2) An application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is pending in the court below. The case of the petitioner in the application is that the
respondent entered into an agreement with him under which he under took to execute the work of sawing and carnage of sleepers in compartment
No. 99 of Dudu Range, Udhampur Division. The respondent during the course of the execution of the work received some amount but did not
execute the work as required under the agreement. So a sum of Rs. 15,8111 remained due to the petitioner from the Respondent. The application
further averred that the respondent failed to execute the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and is further disputing
his liability to pay the above mentioned amount. The petitioner, therefore, sought arbitration in terms of cl. 11 of the agreement.
(3) The application was resisted interalia on the ground that the court at Jammu had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.
(4) The District Judge passed the order in favour of the petitioner in the application and held that the court at Jammu had jurisdiction in the matter
He referred to cl 11 of the agreement which provided that final accounts would be settled at the head office of the firm at Jammu. Further there
was a mention in the agreement that advance money was paid in Jammu. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent in the application has filed this
revision in this court.
(5) Mr. Inderjeet Gupts, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which provides:
Where any persons have entered into an arbitration agreement before the institution of any suit with respect to the subject matter of the agreement
or any part of it, and where a difference has arisen"" to which the agreement applies, they or any of them, instead of proceeding under Chapter II
may apply to a court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in Court.
According to the learned counsel an application under Section 20 is to be made to a court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement
relates. This expression would mean that it is the matter to which the agreement relates that will give jurisdiction to a court. The cause of action is
not the execution of the agreement but the failure of the respondent in the application to execute the work in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the agreement. According to the agreement, the work of sawing and the carriage of sleepers was to be executed in Dudu Range
Udhampur, therefore, it is the court at Udhampur which will have jurisdiction in the matter.
(6) On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion, that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though attractive, is not
impressive. It is true that Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and Sections following it, which deal with jurisdiction have got an overriding effect on
the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the jurisdictional matters. These being special provisions of law with regard to
jurisdiction in the Arbitration Act, they shall prevail over the general law. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the place of
execution of the agreement would not furnish cause of action to the petitioner in the application and that the question of jurisdiction is to be
determined with reference to the matter to which the agreement relates But there is no warrant for the view that it is only the matter which is sought
to be raised by way of dispute in the application that alone will determine the jurisdiction of the court. Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is to be
construed in its proper perspective and must receive liberal construction. The jurisdiction of the court will not be restricted to matter or matters
raised by way of dispute in the application. The jurisdiction is to be determined with reference to all the matters to which the agreement relates and
not with reference to an individual dispute or matter made subject to arbitration. To put it differently and precisely any of the matters specified in
the agreement can determine the jurisdiction of the court and it is not necessary for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction under Section 20 that the
matter or matters should be subject of dispute in the application. The test is that any of the matters to which the agreement relates can determine
the forum.
(7) In the instant case, it is noticed (vide Clause 11 of the agreement) that the parties agreed to render the final accounts in the Head office at
Jammu. This is also a matter which is covered by the agreement. As the place of settling of accounts is mentioned at Jammu in the aforesaid
Clause, therefore, it is also a matter to which the agreement, relates and this will determine the jurisdiction of the court. The mere fact that the work
was to be conducted in Dudu Range will not oust the jurisdiction of the Jammu Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the
court below is consistent with the letter and spirit of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and the same is, hereby, upheld.
(8) The result is that there is no force in this revision, which is hereby dismissed.