M/S Belliss India Ltd. vs Up State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1970 Del

 *             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                         Date of Reserve: May 05, 2009
                                          Date of Order: May 11, 2009

+ OMP No.388/2008

%                                                   11.05.2009

      M/S. BELLISS INDIA LTD.                               ..... Petitioner
                       Through:        Mr. A. Datta with Mr. Atish Ghosh &
                                       Mr. Niloy Dsgupta, Advs.

      Versus


      UP STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LRD & ANR. ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Rakesh Upadhyaya, Adv.

      JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
      judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.    Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

      JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 34 in

the form of objections against an order of learned Arbitrator dated

8th February, 2008.

2. The respondent in its response to the objection petition

has taken an objection about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court

in view of the exclusion clause contained in the agreement between

the parties.

3. A perusal of the terms of contract between the parties

would show that the contract contained following clause:-

"24. The High Court Judicature at Allahabad and other courts subordinate thereto situated at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (UP) shall have jurisdiction with exclusion of all other Courts".

4. A perusal of this clause would show that only the High

Court of judicature at Allahabad and the Courts subordinate thereto

will have jurisdiction with the exclusion of all other Courts. In view

of this clause it is argued by the respondent that this Court had no

jurisdiction.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the clause was

not clear and the place where work was executed by the petitioner

namely Bulandshahr did not fall under Lucknow Bench of Allahabad

High Court. Therefore, this clause would not apply. The other

argument is that no part of cause of action had taken place in UP

and therefore the Exclusion Clause would not apply.

6. Both these arguments are contrary to record. The

agreement between the parties shows that supply order was placed

on the petitioner by the respondent from Lucknow. The supplies

were to be made within UP at Bulandshahr. The quality, design and

features of equipment and instrument were to be inspected after

supply at Bulandshahr. Thus, the part of cause of action had arisen

within State of UP and parties had a right by consent to exclude the

jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and provide that only the Courts

subordinate to Allahabad high Court or Lucknow Bench of Allahabad

High Court would have jurisdiction. Merely because „Exclusion

Clause‟ is not happily worded would not mean that the clause would

have no effect. I therefore consider this Petition cannot be

entertained by this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction and is

liable to be returned. Registry is directed to return the petition to

the petitioner to be filed before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

May    11, 2009                      SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak