Back
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Techma Engineering Enterprise Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act').
2. The disputes by and between the parties arise out of a tender published by the respondent. Pursuant to the tender, the petitioner submitted its bid. Thereafter, the respondent issued a purchase order on the petitioner. On 4 August, 2021, the respondent issued a termination notice and threatened the petitioner to recover the security deposit from the dues payable to the petitioner by the Railways or any other Zonal Railways. In this application, the petitioner assails the notice dated 4 August, 2021.
3. A preliminary point has been raised by the respondent that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that in terms of Clause 17 of Section G of the tender document, and also the letter of acceptance dated 25 January 2021, there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement. For the sake of convenience, Clause 17.1 provides as follows:-
17.1 Court Jurisdiction:
For any disputes related to contract or inspection/action by RDSO in pursuance of General Guidelines for Vendor Approval, the
The existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties clear, and it is not necessary to read such clauses like a statute.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and enforcement of a forum selection clause in a purchase contract, which explicitly designated the headquarters of the Zonal Ra....
The seat of arbitration determines jurisdiction; courts at the arbitration site hold supervisory authority over proceedings regardless of where the cause of action arises.
The seat of arbitration, as specified in the agreement, determines the territorial jurisdiction of the court over the arbitral proceedings.
Designation of the seat of arbitration must be clearly expressed; conflicting jurisdiction clauses require a harmonious construction favoring the overarching agreement.
Parties to a contract may validly agree to vest jurisdiction in a specific court among several competent options. Such exclusive clauses must be enforced, provided the chosen court has the necessary ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
