Gujarat High Court
H K Infracon Private Limited vs Managing Director, M.P. Police Housing ... on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RECALL) NO. 106 of 2025
In R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 9 of 2022
==========================================================
H K INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. POLICE HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MI HAVA(348) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SWATI B SINGHAL(9123) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NISARG DESAI FOR MS ROMA I FIDELIS(3529) for the Opponent(s)
No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
Date : 17/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. M. I. Hava, the learned advocate for the applicant.
2. The recall application has been filed seeking for recall of the order dated 03.01.2025 in rejecting the Arbitration Petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court stating that the Arbitration Petition is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court for the reason that the contract was granted by the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and the scope of 'Works Contract' which was executed within the meaning of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 lie within the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 22 22:23:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025 undefined
3. The learned advocate for the review applicant would argue referring to Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that by virtue of the said provision, the jurisdiction can be said to have been conferred upon this Court to deal with the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, inasmuch as, the petitioner had earlier approached the Civil Court at Gandhinagar by moving an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, which was dealt with and the orders were passed therein. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager East Coast Railway Rail Sadan and Another v/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. ( 2022 SCC OnLine SC 907) to substantiate the said submission and to assert that where with respect to an arbitration agreement, any application under part-I has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arisen out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings, shall be made in that Court only, and in no other Court.
4. Taking note of the said submission, a pointed query was raised to the learned counsel for the review applicant as to whether the Court at Gandhinagar can be said to be a competent court of jurisdiction when no part of cause of action lie in the State of Gujarat, except that the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 22 22:23:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025 undefined registered head office of the petitioner being located in the State of Gujarat , no plausible answer could be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard.
5. A perusal of the statement made in the arbitration petition further indicates that the contract was executed between the parties on 18.09.2019 for construction of 192 NGO and 750 Constable High Rise Quarters at 6th BTN Ranjhi, Jabalpur, which was awarded by the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. The work order dated 22.09.2018 was issued and pursuant thereof, the construction was completed by the petitioner, as per the drawing and design provided by the Corporation.
6. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the entire scope of work and the construction activity was within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The dispute pertaining to an order passed by the NGT is sought to be raised to assert that the construction was stalled by the Corporation under the Work order dated 20.12.2018 in view of the order passed by the NGT and consequentially, the petitioner was constrained to stop the work. A further perusal of the Clause 29 of the Arbitration Clause contained in the contract indicates that the dispute arisen out of or in relation to the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 22 22:23:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025 undefined contract during the progress of the works or after completion or abandonment thereof, ultimately, if not solved at the stage of the Chief Project Engineer and the Managing Director of the Corporation, shall be referred for arbitration to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
7. In light of said condition in the arbitration clause signed by the petitioner with an open eyes, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitration petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would lie in this Court because of location of the office of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had initiated the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 before the Civil Court at Gandhinagar at one point of time and it was entertained, is found to be misconceived.
8. No error, much less en error apparent on the face of record could be found to review the judgment and order dated 03.01.2025.
9. The Review Application is, accordingly, rejected as misconceived. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) C.M. JOSHI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Jan 22 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 22 22:23:45 IST 2025