Ranjan Agencies vs Union Of India
1998 Latest Caselaw 1118 Del

ORDER

DR. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties and also for referring the disputes arising between the parties to the said sole arbitrator for adjudication and decision. It is stated in the petition that in the course of execution of the contract for construction of permanent complex for NSG at Mansard SH Construction of Trading Complex for SAG/SRG Pockets certain disputes have arisen and the said disputes are required to be referred to the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. According to the said clause 25 in case of disputes and differences arising between the parties in respect of and relating to various aspects of the contract the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, in charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be the Chief Engineer the Administrative Head of the said CPWD at the time of such appointment. The petitioner has set out the areas of dispute in paragraph 9 of the petition.

2. The respondents have contested the petition on various grounds including that of want of territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is stated by the respondent that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the tenders for the work 'Constriction of Training Blocks in SAG/SRG Pockets' were awarded to the petitioner contractor by the Executive Engineer, National Security Guard Project Division, Mansard, with the Headquarters office of the Division at Mansard. It is also stated that the site of the work itself is at Mansard in Haryana and the tenders were accepted by the Superintending Engineer with his office at Gurgaon in Haryana.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff however, states that since the appointing authority of the arbitrator is based at Delhi and therefore, this court shall have jurisdiction. I however, cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the decision of this court in Sushil Ansal Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1980 Delhi, page 45, the ratio of which was approved by the Full Bench decision of this court in M/s. Gupta Sanitary Stores Vs. Union of India, . In Sushil Ansal's case (supra) almost a similar issue came up for consideration before this court and it was held that in respect of the contract with the Union of India for carrying out flooring in certain uildings was entered into at Kanpur which was accepted at Lucknow and amount of final bill for contract performed was paid at Kanpur, the Delhi Courts shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 14 & 17 notwithstanding the fact that the arbitrator was appointed at Delhi and he made the award at Delhi. In the light of the aforesaid decision of this court approved by the subsequent Full Bench decision of this court, I find sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and in my considered opinion this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Having held so, I order for return of the petition to the petitioner to enable it to file the same in appropriate and competent court. The petition may be returned to the counsel appearing for the petitioner immediately. No costs.