Gujarat High Court
H K Infracon Private Limited vs Managing Director, M.P. Police Housing ... on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RECALL) NO. 106 of 2025
In R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 9 of 2022
==========================================================
H K INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. POLICE HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MI HAVA(348) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SWATI B SINGHAL(9123) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NISARG DESAI FOR MS ROMA I FIDELIS(3529) for the Opponent(s)
No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
Date : 17/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. M. I. Hava, the learned advocate for the applicant.
2. The recall application has been filed seeking for recall of the order
dated 03.01.2025 in rejecting the Arbitration Petition on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction of this Court stating that the Arbitration Petition is
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court for the reason that the
contract was granted by the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing &
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and the scope of 'Works
Contract' which was executed within the meaning of Madhya Pradesh
Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 lie within the State of
Madhya Pradesh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
3. The learned advocate for the review applicant would argue
referring to Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that
by virtue of the said provision, the jurisdiction can be said to have been
conferred upon this Court to deal with the application under Section 11 of
the Arbitration Act, 1996, inasmuch as, the petitioner had earlier
approached the Civil Court at Gandhinagar by moving an application
under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, which was dealt with and the orders
were passed therein. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex
Court in General Manager East Coast Railway Rail Sadan and
Another v/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. ( 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 907) to substantiate the said submission and to assert that where with
respect to an arbitration agreement, any application under part-I has been
made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral
proceedings and all subsequent applications arisen out of that agreement
and the arbitral proceedings, shall be made in that Court only, and in no
other Court.
4. Taking note of the said submission, a pointed query was raised to
the learned counsel for the review applicant as to whether the Court at
Gandhinagar can be said to be a competent court of jurisdiction when no
part of cause of action lie in the State of Gujarat, except that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
registered head office of the petitioner being located in the State of
Gujarat , no plausible answer could be given by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in that regard.
5. A perusal of the statement made in the arbitration petition further
indicates that the contract was executed between the parties on
18.09.2019 for construction of 192 NGO and 750 Constable High Rise
Quarters at 6th BTN Ranjhi, Jabalpur, which was awarded by the Madhya
Pradesh Police Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
The work order dated 22.09.2018 was issued and pursuant thereof, the
construction was completed by the petitioner, as per the drawing and
design provided by the Corporation.
6. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the entire scope of work and
the construction activity was within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The
dispute pertaining to an order passed by the NGT is sought to be raised to
assert that the construction was stalled by the Corporation under the
Work order dated 20.12.2018 in view of the order passed by the NGT
and consequentially, the petitioner was constrained to stop the work. A
further perusal of the Clause 29 of the Arbitration Clause contained in the
contract indicates that the dispute arisen out of or in relation to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/106/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
contract during the progress of the works or after completion or
abandonment thereof, ultimately, if not solved at the stage of the Chief
Project Engineer and the Managing Director of the Corporation, shall be
referred for arbitration to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal
constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran
Adhiniyam, 1983.
7. In light of said condition in the arbitration clause signed by the
petitioner with an open eyes, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the arbitration petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 would lie in this Court because of location of
the office of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had initiated the
proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 before the Civil
Court at Gandhinagar at one point of time and it was entertained, is found
to be misconceived.
8. No error, much less en error apparent on the face of record could
be found to review the judgment and order dated 03.01.2025.
9. The Review Application is, accordingly, rejected as misconceived.
No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
C.M. JOSHI
