Skip to main content

Where more than one court has jurisdiction, it is open for parties to exclude all other Courts

NJ Constrution Vs. Ayursundra Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi)

The Respondent No. 1 floated a notice inviting tender for the civil and electrical work of Super Specialty Hospital, wherein several bids were invited. The hospital was to be constructed at Guwahati. The Petitioner also participated and was awarded the said work order at the mutually agreed amount. The LOI was issued by Respondent No. 1 for the said work. 

An Article of Agreement was entered into containing the special conditions of the Contract, Specifications and Schedules of quantities with the rates entered therein forming part of the agreement/LOI. It is alleged by the Petitioner that Respondent did not pay the complete advance mobilization money despite request even after five months from the date of the execution of the agreement. The Petitioner kept on doing the work and sending the bills. There was some dispute qua payments. Receiving no response, the Petitioner sent a legal notice for appointment of arbitrator. The main dispute is if arbitrator at Delhi is to be appointed or the courts at Guwahati shall have the jurisdiction. 

In Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. V. Datawind Innovation Pvt. Ltd., it was held that it is well settled that where more than one court has jurisdiction, it is open for parties to exclude all other Courts. In CVS Insurance and Investments v. Vipul IT Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that, (a) there shall be only one seat of arbitration though venues may be different; (b) where the arbitration seat is fixed (may be neutral), only such court shall have an exclusive jurisdiction; (c) where a seat/place of arbitration is fixed it is section 20(1) and section 20(2) of the Act we are referring to; and (d) venue relates to convenience of parties, per section 20(3) of the Act. 

In the circumstances, since the seat of the arbitration is at New Delhi, a neutral venue, only such Court shall have jurisdiction to decide. Hence, petition is allowed and Retired Judge is appointed as an Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted under the aegis of DIAC. The fee of the learned Arbitrator is as per the fee schedule of the DIAC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more