Naramada Industries vs Uttar Pradesh State Electricity ...
1992 Latest Caselaw 551 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) Facts giving rise to this petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act 1940. for enlargement of time for making the award are that as per the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties i.e. Narmada Industries and U.P. State Electricity Board, disputes and differences which had arisen between them were referred to the arbitration of respondents 2 to 4, who entered upon the reference, but could not make the award within four months and, therefore, this application for extension of time has been made at Delhi.

(2) The respondent contested this application pleading that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application, as the agreement between the parties was entered into at Lucknow. respondent No, 1 does not have any office or place of business at Delhi and no cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Even the disputes were not referred to arbitration at Delhi. The Arbitrators for their convenience arc, however, holding the proceedings at New Delhi. It has also been alleged that the respondent No. 1 has already filed a petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act praying for removal of the arbitrators which is pending before the Civil Judge Lucknow and there has been stay of the arbitration proceedings from that court. According to the respondent. Civil Judge Lucknow is the only court competent to entertain this application. Reference to the arbitrators was not by the courts at Delhi.

(3) During the course of arguments, the only point raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the arbitrators have entered upon the reference at Delhi and the arbitration proceedings were being held at New Delhi and therefore this court has the jurisdiction to extend the time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act.

(4) My attention has been drawn towards the provisions of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act. Section 31 lays down that on an application regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the court where the award has been, or may be filed, and by no other court.

(5) In this case, admittedly, the agreement containing arbitration clause was executed at Lucknow. Reference to the Arbitrator was made at Lucknow. Respondent No. 1 has registered office at Lucknow and the award in this matter can be filed in the court having jurisdiction in this matter which according to the facts of the case is at Lucknow. Merely because these arbitrators, respondents 2 to 4 chose to hold proceedings at Delhi for their convenience, this fact is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to Delhi Courts for entertaining this application under Section 28 of the Act. This view has been taken by this court in its earlier two decisions . In view of this legal proposition this application under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time is not maintainable at Delhi as Delhi courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any such petition. This application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.