Blue Star Limited vs Rockland Hospitals Limited
2015 Latest Caselaw 2707 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      Judgment reserved on March 25, 2015
                                     Judgment delivered on April 06, 2015
+                           ARB. P. 148/2015
BLUE STAR LIMITED                                          ..... Petitioner
                            Through:     Mr.Yashvardhan, Advocate with
                                         Mr.Piyush Singh, Advocate

                            versus

ROCKLAND HOSPITALS LIMITED                                  ..... Respondent
                Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act, in short).

2. The respondent awarded the work of supply, installation, testing

and commissioning of HVAC works at Rockland Hospital at Manesar to

the petitioner vide its letter dated March 19, 2010 for the total value of

Rs.9,80,00,000/-. A work order in that regard was issued to the

petitioner on April 1, 2010 by the respondent to the petitioner's office at

Gurgaon.

3. It is averred in the petition, that the petitioner had submitted

sixteen bills till date on pro rata basis as envisaged by the work order

dated April 1, 2010, which have not been paid by the respondent

company till date despite certified by Colonel Bhandari on behalf of the

respondent company on March 12, 2013. It is also averred in the petition

that as the disputes arose the same need to be decided through arbitration

in terms of clause relating to "settlement of disputes by arbitration" in

the work order dated April 01, 2010 and in that regard a notice invoking

arbitration clause was issued seeking consent of the respondent for

appointment of one of the two retired Judges as arbitrator, no response

was received by the petitioner.

4. During hearing on March 25, 2015, an issue arose on the

maintainability of the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of

this Court.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the

arbitration clause in the work order dated April 01, 2010 does not confer

jurisdiction to any particular Court either in Delhi and

Gurgaon/Chandigarh. He would also state that the work order was issued

by the respondent from their office in Delhi. The negotiations between

the parties have taken place at Delhi; some of the payments have been

made/released from Delhi. It is his submission that this Court has the

territorial jurisdiction as part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon

the following judgments in support of his contention:

1. S.D.Technical Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Rail Coach Factory (Kapurthala), 2014 (2) R.A.J. 24 (Del)

2. Mayo Design Vs. Yaskawa Robotics India Ltd., 2014 (5) R.A.J. 122 (Del)

3. Indian Potash Limited Vs. Bohra Industries Ltd., 2011(2) R.A.J. 722 (Del)

4. Indiabulls Real Estate Limited Vs. M/s. Virasat Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (1) R.A.J. 162 (Del)

5. Barco Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kiran Malik, 187 (2012) DLT 19

6. L & T Niro Limited Vs. S.R.P. Industries Ltd., 2001 (60) DRJ 279

7. M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., JT 2013 (10) SC 35

8. Canon India Private Limited Vs. Soma Networks Software Engineering Private Limited, Arb.P. No. 316/2010, dated April 2, 2013, Delhi High Court

9. Smt. Krishna Mittal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., 2011(1) R.A.J. 86 (Del)

10. SVAPN Construction Vs. IDPL Employees Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, and keeping in view the ratio of the judgment in the Mayo

Design's case (supra) wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court

was of the view that a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi since the

respondent was situated in Delhi, from where the purchase order was

issued and similar being the position in this case as the purchase order

dated April 01, 2010 was issued by the respondent from their office

situated in Delhi, this Court would have jurisdiction. Similarly in Barco

Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the learned Single Judge of this

Court, by invoking the principles underlying Section 20 CPC was of the

view that even if the premises in question is located in Noida and the

claim is for refund of security deposit, the same would be covered by the

said Section i.e. Section 20 CPC. In the case in hand, since the registered

office of the respondent herein is situated in Delhi, this Court would

certainly have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. I order accordingly.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE APRIL 06, 2015 akb