High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 02 OHC CK 0095

Ranjan Kumar Dash And Another vs Sole Arbitrator And Another

Orissa High Court · Decided on 11 February 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arindam Sinha, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26613 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 341 words

Arindam Sinha, J

I.A. No.11513 of 2021Â Â

1.

Ms. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, inspite of interim order dated 24th September, 2019 obtained by her

client from Consumer District Forum, Boudh, interim measure by order dated 3rd October, 2019 was made in the reference being conducted in

Chennai. Her clients are unable to participate in the reference, having obtained credit facilities for purchasing the vehicle here in Odisha. She submits,

the consumer disputes case is pending. As such, the reference could not have been commenced. She prays for adjournment to rely on authority.

2.

Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of the finance company. He submits, there is clear clause in the agreement regarding Courts in

Chennai alone having exclusive jurisdiction on matters arising out of the agreement. Furthermore, if petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order, appeal

lies under section 37 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As such, prayer for vacating interim order made by his client in the interim application

be allowed.

3.

The agreement says it was made at the place and date mentioned in the schedule. The schedule says the agreement was made in Chennai.

Jurisdiction clause 30 says the agreement has been accepted and executed by the company at Chennai and, inter alia, payment shall be observed and

performed at Chennai. When cause of action arises in more than one place parties may agree Courts at one of the two places will have exclusive

jurisdiction. Court does not have before it any pleading from the finance company to show what part of the cause of action arose in Odisha, for there

to be agreement on exclusive and ouster of jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is also no pleading on side of the finance company regarding pendency of

the consumer disputes case. Thirdly, coordinate Bench passed the interim order on 23rd December, 2019 and the interim application to vacate it

appears to have been made in August, 2021.

4.

In circumstances aforesaid, adjournment is granted.

5.

List on 28th February, 2022.

................................