M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited vs Ramvir Singh & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2349 Del

           * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                        Date of Reserve: 27.5.2009
                                                      Date of Order: 29th May, 2009

OMP No. 307/2009
%                                                                          29.5.2009

       M/s Era Infra Engineering Limited            ... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Manoj K. Singh, Advocate

              Versus


       Ramvir Singh & Anr.                                       ... Respondents



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?

ORDER

This application/petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act, 1996 has been made by the petitioner seeking certain interim

reliefs. However, the petitioner was asked to address the Court on the issue of

jurisdiction as the agreement between the parties was entered into at

Bahadurgarh (Haryana), the subject matter of the dispute is also situated in

Haryana. The petitioner's address as given in the agreement is of New Delhi

whereas the respondent's address is that of Haryana. The relief sought by the

petitioner is in respect of property situated in Village and P.O. Bhaprauda, Tehsil

Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

2. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction on the basis of arbitration

clause in the agreement which provides that the arbitration between the parties in

case of disputes or difference, shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be

appointed by the Managing Director of the petitioner. The proceedings of

arbitration shall be as per the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

and the venue of the arbitration shall be at Delhi and the Courts at New Delhi

shall have exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of other Courts.

3. It is settled law that where more than one Court have jurisdiction

because of cause of action or some other reason, the parties have a right to

arrive at an agreement as to which Court, would have jurisdiction. However, the

parties do not have liberty to invest a Court with jurisdiction if it does not

otherwise have. For example if the Courts in Punjab & Haryana and Delhi would

simultaneously have jurisdiction over the subject matter because of cause of

action or other reasons, the parties can choose either of the two courts. But, if

Delhi and Punjab & Haryana Courts have jurisdiction, the parties cannot choose

Mumbai as their Court of jurisdiction. In a case, where the subject matter of the

dispute is immovable property, it is settled law that the Court where the

immovable property is situated is the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. The

agreement in this case was entered in Haryana, the property is situated in

Haryana therefore, the Courts of appropriate jurisdiction would be that of Punjab

& Haryana Courts and not Delhi.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in case the

parties chose a particular place as the place of holding arbitration proceedings

that Court also is an appropriate Court of jurisdiction. I consider that this plea

must fail. The Arbitration & Conciliation Act gives right to the parties to have the

Arbitrator of their choice and the place of arbitration of their choice. The parties

may chose that if the dispute is to be resolved in summer, the arbitration will be

held in Srinagar or Shimla and in case the dispute arises in winter, the arbitration

will be held in Chennai or Mumbai or the parties can chose another cosy place

for holding arbitration proceedings. They can have a place of arbitration they

like. The place of arbitration may depend upon the liking of the Arbitrator as well.

Mere place of arbitration would not invest the Court of that place to entertain the

proceedings under the Arbitration Act. Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act, 1996 defines the "Court" for the purpose of jurisdiction as under:

(e) "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having, jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject- matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject- matter of the suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small causes:

5. It is apparent that in order to choose the Court of appropriate

jurisdiction, it is to be seen that in case, the same subject-matter as that of the

arbitration application was the subject matter of a suit, the Court where it is filed

would have jurisdiction. Looking from this angle, the Delhi High Court does not

have jurisdiction over the matter. The petition is liable to be returned to be filed

before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction and is hereby directed to be returned.

May 29, 2009                                      SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn