The jurisdiction for arbitration proceedings lies at the place designated as the seat in the special terms of the contract, and the petitioner can claim damages for wrongful termination but not reinstatement of the contract.

JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - Supplementary affidavit filed be taken on record.

2. The present Section 9 application has arisen from a termination effected by the respondent against the petitioner in a contract for loading, unloading and transportation of coal in a contract entered between the parties. It appears from the contract that the contract commenced on 27th April, 2022 and the petitioner was required to commence work within 15 days from that date. The petitioner commenced work on 10th May, 2022 which is within the 15 days, according to the petitioner. The documents in the petition indicate that work was carried out on 10th, 11th and 12th May, 2022. However, in between on May 11, 2022, due to certain disruptions caused by anti-social elements, the work was stopped for a period of time and the petitioner filed an FIR against certain hoodlums and informed the respondent of the said incident. The respondent authorities issued a letter on 12th May, 2022 wherein the respondent noted that the work had not been started by the petitioner within 15 days and directed the petitioner to commence work within 24 hours. The letter further stated that in the event the petitioner did not commence work, the respondent shall be compelled to take action in terms of Clause 10 of the scope of work with regard to suspension and termination of work. On the same date, reply was given by the petitioner to the respondent submitting the factum of work having been carried out on 10th, 11th and 12th May, 2022. Surprisingly, on the same date, the respondent authorities issued a letter of termination with immediate effect. It is to be noted that this letter neither complied with the 24-hour notice issued on May 12, 2022 by the respondent itself nor Clause 10 of the scope of work that required a notice to be given for a period of 7 days before termination.

3. Counsel on behalf of the respondent authorities has submitted that this Section 9 application is filed in the Court of wrong jurisdiction and the Calcutta High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter as the special terms of contract specifically indicate in Clauses 10 and 12 that the Courts of Ranchi shall have jurisdiction and the place of arbitration shall be Ranchi. Counsel on behalf of the respondent further submits on the merits of the case that the petitioner did not inform the respondent with details of the mobilization that was required to be done within 15 days. He submits that this is the reason for having terminated the contract as without the said mobilization, the scope of work could not be carried out in its entirety. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the delay in transfer of coal to the generation plants has resulted in great loss to the respondent already and, accordingly, the respondent had to take the decision of termination of the contract of the petitioner. He submitted that, for the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that the termination is not as per the contract, the only remedy available to the petitioner at this stage is that of damages and there is no question of reinstatement of the petitioner or of stay of the letters issued by the respondent authorities with regard to termination. Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that the contract has now been awarded temporarily to another party and work has already commenced. He submits that granting a stay on the termination would result in irreparable loss and injury as the petitioner has failed to carry out the task given to it as per the contract of transportation of the coal to the generation plants and any further delay in the same would result in further losses to the respondent company.

4. Mr. Ghosh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction in this matter as letters have been received by the petitioner at its office in Kolkata. He further submits that the jurisdiction clause provided for Ranchi would not prevent the Calcutta High Court to