Versatile Construction vs Tata Motors Finance Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 3004 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Versatile Construction vs Tata Motors Finance Ltd on 25 September, 2024

Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

OCD-4
                                 ORDER SHEET

                            IA NO. GA-COM/1/2024
                                      In
                               AP-COM/822/2024

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE
                             (Commercial Division)


                          VERSATILE CONSTRUCTION
                                     VS
                         TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
  Date : 25th September, 2024.

                                                                        Appearance:
                                                              Mr. Tapas Dutta, Adv.
                                                                  ...for the petitioner

                                                           Ms. Anna Malhotra, Adv.
                                                             Mr. Rishav Maity, Adv.
                                                                ...for the respondent

The Court: Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award impugned

in the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 was passed by an Arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the respondent.

Secondly, the awarded amount is much greater than even the current dues

of the petitioner towards the respondent, as borne out by a statement which

has allegedly been issued by the respondent to the petitioner and annexed

to the present application bearing GA-COM/1/2024.

It is submitted that although the present application is in the nature

of one under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, it could not be captioned as one

since the Office is not accepting the filing due to the pendency of an

application under Section 34. It is further submitted that the asset, that is,

a movable vehicle, is sought to be forcibly possessed by the respondent and

the petitioner seeks a restraint order in that regard.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the outset, takes an

objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground of territoriality.

Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on Clause 21 of

the agreement between the parties which states that arbitration between the

parties is to be held in Mumbai in accordance with the 1996 Act or any

statutory amendment thereof. That apart, Clause 22 stipulates that all legal

actions and/or proceedings arising out of/in connection with the agreement

and the assets shall be brought in/before competent courts/tribunals in

Mumbai. Hence, it is submitted that both the jurisdiction of courts and the

seat of arbitration are agreed upon the parties to be in Mumbai.

On a prima facie perusal of the agreement, it transpires that in the

absence of any other contrary clause in the agreement to indicate that the

seat of arbitration was not intended to be Mumbai, the expression in Clause

21.1 to the effect that "arbitration to be held in Mumbai" can be construed

to mean that the parties consented to the seat of arbitration being in

Mumbai.

However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to

cite certain judgments to the contrary.

On the prayer of the petitioner, accordingly, the matter is adjourned

till September 30, 2024, when it will be listed under the same heading.

The copy of the agreement between the parties handed over in Court

today be kept on record.

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

R.Bhar