AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S C. Mohapatra J.
This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against an order refusing to entertain the application under section 20 of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator on the sole ground that court has got no territorial jurisdiction.
Plaintiff is an handling agent of defendant no. 2. There is a written agreement between the parties for the said purpose. In clause no. 10 it is provided that disputes would be referred to Arbitrator. In clause 11 it is provided
"Subject to clause 10 above, it is hereby agreed that courts at New Delhi/Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate upon any disputes which may arise out of or be in connection with this agreement."
When there was a dispute, plaintiff approached court at Dehradun for appointment of an Arbitrator. Trial court has rejected the application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction in view of clause 11 of the agreement. This is grievance of the appellant.
Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon a decision reported in M/s Patel Roadweys Limited v. M/s Prrsad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514. The said decision is distinguishable on facts. In the said decision considering Section 20 of the Code of civil Procedure suit for damages against Corporation it was held that corporation having subordinate offices in place where cause of action arose such place would have jurisdiction. This is not the case where the territorial jurisdiction was confined to a particular place.
In the present agreement only Delhi Court has jurisdiction in as much as defendant no. 1 can be treated to have a residence at Delhi where its head office is situated. No doubt cause of action arose at Dehradun. Yet as the parties have agreed that Delhi court alone would have jurisdiction trial court is correct in coming to a conclusion that it would not entertain a suit merely because the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction when parties have agreed that Delhi Court has jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and is dismissed, There shall be no order as to costs.
(Appeal dismissed)