Petitioner sought termination of an arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration Act. The court declined to entertain the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose partly outside Delhi, though liberty was granted to approach the appropriate court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~25
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Ms. Geetika Kapur, Ms. Aanchal and Mr. Vardaan Bajaj, Advs.
versus
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS & ANR.
..... Respondents Through Mr. Jagjit Singh and Mr. Preet Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
% 10.01.2019
I.A. No.251/2019
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 4/2019
2 This is a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘1996 Act’).
3 Mr. Preet Singh, who, appears on behalf of the respondents, has taken a preliminary objection that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain in the instant petition.
4 I have perused the petition. The only assertion made in the petition with regard to the jurisdiction is as follows:
“This Hon’ble Court has the pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition”. O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 4/2019 Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
5 As is obvious, material particulars as to how this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present petition is not pleaded.
6 It is not in dispute that the subject contract required the petitioner to execute the works described as: "blanketing with river bed material from Chakki River and earthwork in formation and in embankment and in cutting including mechanical compaction and construction of minor bridges of RCC boxes, RCC slabs, hume pipes and other allied works between Suchipind (including) to Cholang (including) in connection with doubling of Jalandhar Cantt-PathankotJammu section".
7 Therefore, what emerges that if not wholly, a part of cause of action arises outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
8 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the arbitration proceedings have been held in Delhi.
8.1 On being queried, learned counsel for the petitioner does concede that there is no provision in the agreement obtaining between the parties whereby Delhi has been fixed as the seat of Arbitration.
9 To be noted, via this petition, mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is sought to be terminated even though the Arbitral Tribunal has been in existence since 2014. It is the petitioner’s contention that the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal had to be changed twice i.e. in 2015 and 2017 as the Presiding Arbitrator was changed. I am further informed that the proceedings are now at the stage of evidence.
Page 2 of 3
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 4/2019
10 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has failed to show as to how this Court has territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the fact that if not wholly, a part of cause of action has arisen outside Delhi, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. The same is, accordingly, returned.
11 Needless to say, the petitioner will, however, have the liberty to approach the appropriate Court, if it so desires to agitate the issue raised in the petition as I have not dealt with the same on merits.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 10, 2019 A
Page 3 of 3
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 4/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when a part of the cause of action arose outside Delhi.
Whether the petitioner adequately pleaded territorial jurisdiction given the location of the executed works outside Delhi.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS
RAJIV SHAKDHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
