R. C. Lahoti, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking filing of an arbitration agreement and appointment of an arbitrator. The petition is accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 41 (b) and Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act seeking an injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from enforcing a bank guarantee issued by the defendant No. 3, a bank and furnished by the plaintiff to the defendants No. 1 and 2 in connection with performance of the contract.

( 2 ) THE petition was filed on 24. 9. 94. It came up for hearing on 25. 9. 94. At the preliminary hearing it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that copy of the agreement containing the arbitration clause was not filed with the petition and the petition also did not reproduce the arbitration clause on which it was founded. The court also indicated to the counsel that there was a doubt about the competence of this Court by reference to its territorial jurisdiction and before entertaining the petition and the prayer for the grant of interim relief, the court would like to hear the counsel on the question. Later in the day, the counsel has filed the copy of agreement entered into between the parties.

( 3 ) COUNSEL heard on the question of maintainability of the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Inasmuch as the petitioner was pressing hard for the grant of interim relief, having formulated an opinion adverse to the petitioner, by a brief order this court has directed the petition to be returned for presentation to a proper court holding it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Detailed reasons are hereby assigned for arriving at the finding. 4. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on its business activities at Kota in the State of Rajasthan. The defendant - Gas Authority of India Ltd.- has its principal office at Delhi. It has its branch office and substantial establishment at Guna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The principal office and the branch office are impleaded as defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively. 653 Bank of India, the defendant No. 3 has issued, a bank guarantee in favour of the petitioner furnished to the defendants No. 1 and 2.

( 5 ) THE petitioner had entered into a contract with defendants No. l and 2 for maintenance and upkeep of gardens in the establishment of these defendants at Guna. The contract was entered into at Guna. It was to be. performed at Guna. The alleged breaches of performance have taken place at Guna. The defendant No. 2, the branch office, is proceeding to invoke the bank guarantee. There is an arbitration clause contained in the contract which requires the disputes arising between the parties to be settled by arbitration; aritrator to be appointed by a competent authority of defendants No. 1 and 2.

( 6 ) THE grounds on which the petitioner seeks to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court are that the principal office of defendants No. 1 and 2 is situated at Delhi and that the authority competent to appoint the arbitrator consistently with the arbitration clause is also situated at Delhi; hence this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

( 7 ) THE question arising for decision is whether inrelation to a contract, the promises whereunder were to be performed at Guna (Madhya Pradesh) and the alleged breaches giving rise to disputes forming subject matter of reference to arbitration have taken place at Guna, whether a Court at Delhi is competent to entertain proceedings under the Arbitration Act merely on account of. principal office of the defendant company and the authority competent to appoint arbitrator being situated within its jurisdiction.

( 8 ) SECTION 31 (1) of the Arbitration Act provides as under:- "31 Jurisdiction.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an award may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document