PRATIBHA BONNERJEA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner carries on business under the name and style of Standard Steel Suppliers at No. 5/1, Clive Row, Calcutta as the sole proprietor thereof. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent to supply M. S. rounds at agreed rate and the respondent issued a purchase order dated 19-10-81. One of the terms of the contract was that before supply the petitioner would give inspection of the goods to the respondent. Pursuant to the said agreement the respondent's representative inspected the goods and three inspection certificates were issued by the respondent's Assistant Director of Inspection (MET) from his office at Guha Building at No. 7, Ganesh Chandra Avenue within the jurisdiction aforesaid. The said goods were alleged to be wrongfully rejected by the respondent. By a letter dated 28-4-82, addressed to the petitioner the respondent's controller of stores alleged that the delivery period had expired but the extension of time would be granted if the petitioner would agree to accept Rs. 4,380/- per M. T. instead of Rs. 4,885/- per M. T. as agreed. The petitioner's case is that the said letter was written in breach of the agreement and the petitioner accepted the said breach within the jurisdiction. Disputes arose and the same were referred to the arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the contract. The Arbitrator made the award. On 23-3-83, the petitioner made the present application under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act in this Court for direction on the Arbitrator to file the award in this Court. On 30-3-83, the respondent made a similar application in Gauhati Court for filing the said award in that Court. The question is which Court will have jurisdiction in the matter?

( 2 ) THE respondent's counsel submits that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such this Court cannot entertain this application. I am unable to accept this submission. Under the terms of the contract, the respondent was to take inspection of the goods. The certificates of inspection were issued by the respondent from within the jurisdiction of this Court. This was done in performance of the contract. Hence part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner prayed for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which was granted. The respondent did not make any application for revocation of the said leave. In that view of the matter, I reject this submission of the respondent. It is, therefore, clear that both this Court and the Gauhati Court have jurisdiction to entertain the application for filing the award.

( 3 ) THE respondent's counsel submit that the contract contained a forum selection clause as follows : 2703 :" Jurisdiction of Court :- The Court of the place from where the acceptance of tender has been issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract. " it is an admitted case that the acceptance of tender was issued for Gauhati. The respondent's counsel, relying on the above clause submits, that although this agreement will not divest this Court of its jurisdiction in the matter but this Court being the excluded Court, should not exercise its jurisdiction in view of this lawful agreement between the parties. In support of his contention, he relies on AIR 1971 SC 740, Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. and AIR 1985 Cal 89, Sm. Kumud Agarwalla v. Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. In both these cases the excluded Court declined to exercise jurisdiction to give effect to the agreement between the parties.

( 4 ) THE petitioner's counsel however points out that in none of the aforesaid two cases, the effect of the provisions of Section 31 (4) of the Arbitration Act was considered. The petitioner's counsel invites my attention to Section 31 of the Arbitration Act which is set out below :- 31. "jurisdiction.- Subject to the provisions of thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document