Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Durga Lal Soni vs M/S Paras Commo Broking Pvt Ltd ... on 20 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:10338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 23/2021
Durga Lal Soni S/o Bhanwar Lal Soni, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Near Sunarao Ke Mandir, Junawas, Bhilwara - 311001
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Paras Commo Broking Pvt Ltd, S.f. 21-22 Fateh Tower,
Bhilwara, In Front Of Urban Cooperative Bank, Nagauri Garden,
Bhilwara - Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari
Mr. Ayush Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
20/02/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
20.07.2020 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara in
Civil Misc. Case No.17/2015 whereby the application/objections
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1996') as filed on behalf of
the applicant-objector were returned by the Court in terms of
Order 7 Rule 10, CPC to be filed before the appropriate
Court/forum.
2. The learned Trial Court, while relying upon the Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs.
Associated Contractors; (2015) 1 SCC 32, observed that as
the complete arbitration proceedings had been conducted at Delhi,
the objections qua the award passed by the Arbitrator would also
[2025:RJ-JD:10338] (2 of 4) [CMA-23/2021]
lie before the Courts at Delhi and hence, returned the application/
objections to the applicant.
3. It is relevant to note here that there was no objection
regarding jurisdiction raised on behalf of the respondent before
the learned Trial Court and the Court suo moto, while relying upon
the aforesaid judgment, proceeded in terms of Order 7 Rule 10,
CPC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Trial Court erroneously relied upon the judgment in Associated
Contractors's case (supra) whereas the same did not even apply
to the present matter. Learned counsel while relying upon the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Aseem
Watts Vs. Union of India; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1462 submits
that even otherwise, it is the seat of arbitration on basis of which
the jurisdiction of the Court would be decided and not the venue
of arbitration.
5. Learned counsel submits that as per Clause 15.20 of the
byelaws of MCX (governing the parties in question), the venue of
arbitration was fixed at Delhi being the Original Arbitration Centre
of Exchange. However, so far as the 'Competent Court' is
concerned, the same was to be the one nearest to the address
provided by investors/client in the KYC form. Therefore, as per the
aforesaid clause, the venue of arbitration being at Delhi would
make no difference so far as the jurisdiction of the Court is
concerned. The same would definitely be governed by Clause
15.20 only.
[2025:RJ-JD:10338] (3 of 4) [CMA-23/2021]
6. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to
refute the above position of law and the ratio as laid down in
Aseem Watts's case (supra).
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. Clause 15.20 of the agreement in question governing the
parties reads as under:
"15.20 Place of Arbitration:
The arbitration and appellate arbitration shall
be conducted at the regional arbitration
centre of the Exchange nearest to the
address provided by investor/client in the
KYC form or as per the change of address
communicated thereafter by the
investor/client to the Member. The
application under Section 34 of the Act, if
any, against the the arbitral award passed by
the arbitrator(s) or the Appellate Arbitral
Award passed by the Appellate Arbitrator
shall be filed in the competent court nearest
to the address provided by investor/client in
the KYC form or as per the change of
address communicated thereafter by the
investor/client to the Member."
9. A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that the
arbitration was to be conducted at the regional arbitration centre
of the Exchange nearest to the address provided by investor/client
in the KYC form. The regional arbitration centre of the Exchange
is admittedly at Delhi. Hence, the venue of arbitration was to be
Delhi.
The above clause further provides that the application under
Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was to be filed in the competent
court nearest to the address provided by investor/client in the KYC
form. Admittedly, the address provided by the applicant was of
Bhilwara and further, even the address of the respondent firm is of
[2025:RJ-JD:10338] (4 of 4) [CMA-23/2021]
Bhilwara. Meaning thereby, the application under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996 was to be filed in the competent court at Bhilwara
only. The same having been filed at Bhilwara, the learned Trial
Court was competent to hear the same and the order impugned
whereby the application/objections have been returned by the
learned Trial Court being in contravention to the settled position of
law, does deserve interference.
10. As is the settled position of law, where the contract specifies
the jurisdiction of the Court at a particular place, only such court
will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the parties
intend to exclude all other courts. If any clause in the agreement
provides exclusive jurisdiction to one court, the said clause would
prevail. In the present case, Clause 15.20 of the agreement in
question providing the exclusive jurisdiction to the competent
court at Bhilwara, would definitely govern the field.
11. The order impugned dated 20.07.2020 is hereby quashed
and set aside and the appeal is allowed. The learned Trial Court
shall proceed on to register the application/objections as filed on
behalf of the applicant.
12. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to raise all the
grounds as available to him in law and the learned Trial Court shall
be under an obligation to decide the same in accordance with law.
(REKHA BORANA),J
262-Devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
