SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Cal) 547

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI
Sitaram Rice Mills – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B. K. Bachawat and Pinaki Ghose, for petitioner
T. K. Basu and Dipak Basu, for the respondent

JUDGMENT

This is an application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitration clause is contained in Clause 24 of the contract of the lender. The said clause has been set out in extenso in paragraph 9 of the petition. It is of the widest amplitude and it covers any questions, disputes or differences arising under those conditions or the special conditions of contract or in connection with the contract except certain specially exempted matters. Clause 20(3) of the conditions of contract reads as follows:

"Jurisdiction of Courts - The courts 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."

2. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that there was no averment that the Delhi High Court or the Delhi Court has jurisdiction to entertain this dispute and there was no averment that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. I am, however, unable to accept this contention because paragraph 31 of the affidavit-in-opposition clearly alleges that the acceptance of the tender was issued from New Delhi which is outside the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top