* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on March 25, 2015
Judgment delivered on April 06, 2015
+ ARB. P. 148/2015
BLUE STAR LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Yashvardhan, Advocate with
Mr.Piyush Singh, Advocate
versus
ROCKLAND HOSPITALS LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act, in short).
2. The respondent awarded the work of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of HVAC works at Rockland Hospital at Manesar to the petitioner vide its letter dated March 19, 2010 for the total value of Rs.9,80,00,000/-. A work order in that regard was issued to the petitioner on April 1, 2010 by the respondent to the petitioner's office at Gurgaon.
3. It is averred in the petition, that the petitioner had submitted sixteen bills till date on pro rata basis as envisaged by the work order dated April 1, 2010, which have not been paid by the respondent Arb.P. 148/2015 Page 1 of 4 company till date despite certified by Colonel Bhandari on behalf of the respondent company on March 12, 2013. It is also averred in the petition that as the disputes arose the same need to be decided through arbitration in terms of clause relating to "settlement of disputes by arbitration" in the work order dated April 01, 2010 and in that regard a notice invoking arbitration clause was issued seeking consent of the respondent for appointment of one of the two retired Judges as arbitrator, no response was received by the petitioner.
4. During hearing on March 25, 2015, an issue arose on the maintainability of the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitration clause in the work order dated April 01, 2010 does not confer jurisdiction to any particular Court either in Delhi and Gurgaon/Chandigarh. He would also state that the work order was issued by the respondent from their office in Delhi. The negotiations between the parties have taken place at Delhi; some of the payments have been made/released from Delhi. It is his submission that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction as part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention: Arb.P. 148/2015 Page 2 of 4
1. S.D.Technical Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Rail Coach Factory (Kapurthala), 2014 (2) R.A.J. 24 (Del)
2. Mayo Design Vs. Yaskawa Robotics India Ltd., 2014 (5) R.A.J. 122 (Del)
3. Indian Potash Limited Vs. Bohra Industries Ltd., 2011(2) R.A.J. 722 (Del)
4. Indiabulls Real Estate Limited Vs. M/s. Virasat Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (1) R.A.J. 162 (Del)
5. Barco Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kiran Malik, 187 (2012) DLT 19
6. L & T Niro Limited Vs. S.R.P. Industries Ltd., 2001 (60) DRJ 279
7. M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., JT 2013 (10) SC 35
8. Canon India Private Limited Vs. Soma Networks Software Engineering Private Limited, Arb.P. No. 316/2010, dated April 2, 2013, Delhi High Court
9. Smt. Krishna Mittal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., 2011(1) R.A.J. 86 (Del)
10. SVAPN Construction Vs. IDPL Employees Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and keeping in view the ratio of the judgment in the Mayo Design's case (supra) wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi since the Arb.P. 148/2015 Page 3 of 4 respondent was situated in Delhi, from where the purchase order was issued and similar being the position in this case as the purchase order dated April 01, 2010 was issued by the respondent from their office situated in Delhi, this Court would have jurisdiction. Similarly in Barco Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court, by invoking the principles underlying Section 20 CPC was of the view that even if the premises in question is located in Noida and the claim is for refund of security deposit, the same would be covered by the said Section i.e. Section 20 CPC. In the case in hand, since the registered office of the respondent herein is situated in Delhi, this Court would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. I order accordingly.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE APRIL 06, 2015 akb Arb.P. 148/2015 Page 4 of 4