JUDGMENT :

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7589 of 2011

1. Leave granted. Admittedly, a Raising Agreement with regard to mines located in Goa was entered between the parties at Raipur on 09.04.2007. The first Appellant operates mines in Goa. Under the Raising Agreement, the Respondent is exclusive purchaser of the ore from the mines of the Appellants. The disputes having arisen between the parties, the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "CIL") made an application Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 1996 Act') for interim protection before the Court of District Judge, Raipur. The present Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "SIMOES"), who were Respondents in the application, raised the objection, by way of an application, about the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Raipur. It was submitted by the SIMOES that the District Judge, Raipur has no jurisdiction for three reasons: (i) the subject mines are located in Goa, (ii) the agreement was also made in Goa, and (iii) the place of residence of Respondent No. 2 is Goa. CIL, on the other hand, responded to the SIMOES objection by stating that although the subject mines are situated in Goa, the working of the company is in Raipur, the cause of action also arose in Raipur and, therefore, the District Judge, Raipur also has jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter.

2. The District Judge, Raipur elaborately noted the arguments of the parties, but curiously first observed that it would be possible to decide the issue of jurisdiction only when SIMOES filed reply to the petition Under Section 9 of the 1996 Act and then dismissed the application whereby SIMOES raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, SIMOES preferred appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court did not interfere with the order of the District Judge, Raipur and observed that the question of jurisdiction could only be decided by the District Judge after the reply was filed to the application Under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The High Court observed that the District Judge shall decide the application Under Section 9 and so also the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction afresh within thirty days from the date of the filing of reply and after hearing the parties.

4. We have heard Mr. Rafiq A. Dada, learned senior counsel for the Appellants (SIMOES), and Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, learned Counsel for the Respondent (CIL).

5. Clause 13 of the Raising Agreement dated 09.04.2007 reads as under:

"The Courts at Goa shall have exclusive jurisdiction."

6. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for CIL that Goa courts have jurisdiction, but his submission is that Raipur court also has jurisdiction and since the question of jurisdiction has not been finally decided by the District Judge, Raipur, the District Judge, Raipur must be allowed to decide the question of its own jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for CIL relies upon decisions of this Court in Michael Golodetz and Others Vs. Serajuddin and Company, AIR 1963 SC 1044 and Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. D.C. Patel, AIR 1953 SC 16.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Rafiq A. Dada, learned senior counsel for SIMOES, submits that the parties have agreed that Goa courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction and, thus, by their agreement the jurisdiction of the Raipur court has been ousted. He submits that in view of the jurisdiction clause in the agreement, now the Raipur court has no jurisdiction at all. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the Appellants, relies upon two judgments of this Court - (one), Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and (two), State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Associated Contractors (Civil Appeal No. 6691 of 2005) and other connected matter (Civil Appeal No. 4808 of 2013) decided on 10.09.2014.

8. In Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the 3-Judge Bench o