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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more