Sarvendra Kumar Singh Eng. & ... vs Chairman & Managing Dir., ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 65 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This is a Petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for the issuance of a direction to the Respondent to file the Arbitration Agreement in Court and to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and claims existing between the parties. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents which substantially raises two contentions. It is firstly averred that the tenders were flouted from VSTPP, Vindhyanagar, Sidhi, Madhya pradesh where the works were also carried out, and that consequently this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain any disputes arising out of that contract. It is secondly contended that full and final settlement was accepted by the Petitioner on 21.12.1991, which was subsequently confirmed by means of letter dated 23.12.1991 and that having received full and final settlement the Arbitration clause had been fully satisfied. Hence no disputes subsist, and none are referable to arbitration.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Ratan Bhatia Vs. Food Corporation of India, A. I.R. 1978 Delhi 183 in which the following observations were made :

Apart from a Court having jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the Act within whose jurisdiction the cause of action to sue arises, the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant or each of the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, will also have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the Act in terms of the clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. Volumes of water have flown from under the bridge since this decision had been rendered. A Restatement of the law can be found in Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Prasad Trading Co., in which the following decisions were duly considered.

1. U.O.I. Vs. Ladu Lal Jain, .

2. Bakhtawar Singh Vs. U.O.I., J.T. 1998 (1) SC 467.

3. Ram Ratan Bhartia Vs. FCI, (Supra).

4. Kuldip Sing Vs. U.O.I., A.I.R. 1996 Delhi 56 and

5. Gupta Sanitary Store Vs. U.O.I., .

4. In, Corba Super Thermal Power Project Vs. Madhav Engineering Enterprise, a Division Bench of this Court presided over by M. Jaganatha Rao C.J. had declined to exercise jurisdiction in Delhi where the entire cause of action had arisen in Madhya Pradesh. This was in spite of the fact that the principal office of the Respondent was at Delhi.

5. Recently two Division Benches of this Court have also pronounced upon the law of this aspect, in the cases U.O.I. Vs. Electronic Control and Instrument Engineers and B.B. Varma Vs. N.P.C.C. . In the last mentioned case the Learned Single Judge had held a similar petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act to be not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction since no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court i.e. in Delhi. Aggrieved by this order an appeal had been preferred which was however dismissed. No useful purpose will be served in producing extracts from these judgments.

6. The contention raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is, therefore, not res integra and is fully covered by the judgment mentioned above. Since the cause of action for the filing of the present case has not arisen in Delhi, it would be of no relevance whatsoever whether the Respondent has its office or carries on any business in Delhi. The Court vested with territorial jurisdiction would be those in Vindheyanagar Sidhi (M.P.).

7. The objection of the Respondent on this aspect is therefore sustained. Since this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction it would not be proper to pronounce on the second contention of the Respondent, i.e. that since full and final payment had been received the disputes now raised in this petition are not referable to Arbitration. It would be open to the parties to submit before the Court of competent jurisdiction that this question is res nova and is not effectively settled by decisions of the Apex Court. I must resist the temptation of any further reflection on this second aspect.

8. Since the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a judgment rendered in 1978, over two decades ago, which judgment has since been dealt with by the Apex Court, the Petition and the arguments adduced are vexatious. The petition deserves to be rejected with costs, which are adjudged Rs. 5,000/-. The Petitioner is, however, granted a period of two months within which to refile this Petition in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

9. All pending I.As. as well as the Petition are disposed of accordingly.