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

2001 Supreme(Del) 683

High Court Of Delhi
LANDT NIRO LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
S.R.P.INDUSTRIES LIMITED - Respondent
A.A. 124 of 2000
Decided On : 05/22/2001

Advocates Appeared:
Niraj Singh, SANGITA S.PANICKER

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 (6)(b) — Appointment of arbitrator — Objection regarding jurisdiction of Court — It is the choice of the plaintiff to tile a suit where subordinate office of the defendant is situated and he cannot be compelled to file a suit at the place where principal office as provided is situated, expln. to Section 20, CPC.

J. D. KAPOOR

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 11 (6) (b) of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an appointment of Arbitrator/umpire for settlement of disputes and differences between the parties.

( 2 ) THE only objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as the contract was to be performed in varansi. Admittedly the respondent s company has a subordinate office in Delhi. In view of the fact that the company has a subordinate office in Delhi, this Court has territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of civil Procedure which provides as under :-

SECTION 20 - Other suits to be insituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises : Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be insituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the, cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation: a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in india or, in respect of any any cause of action arising it any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

( 3 ) THE explanation attached to the Section 20 came up for consideration in M/s Patel Roadways Limited Vs. M/s Prasad Trading Company AIR 1992 SC 1514 wherein it was held that it is the choice of the plaintiff to file a suit where subordinate office of the defendant is situated and he cannot be compelled to file a suit at the place where principal office alone is situated.

( 4 ) AS a result, the petition is allowed and hon ble Mr. Justice Awadh Bihari Rohtagi , Retired Judge of this Court is hereby appointed an Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall fix his own fees. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 10/7/2001 at 4. 00 P. M.

( 5 ) THE Petition as well as IA stands disposed of.

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 Back to top