Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
J.R. Midha, J.
Aarka Sports Management Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kalsi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 662 of 2019
Decided On : 06-07-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for appointment of arbitrator under arbitration act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over jurisdiction of delhi courts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal definitions and principles regarding arbitration jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. determination of jurisdiction in absence of seat agreement. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. court's analysis of jurisdiction based on arbitration agreement. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. conclusion that court lacks jurisdiction. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
2. The arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in clause 15 of the operation, maintenance and management agreement dated 16th March, 2018, which is reproduced hereunder:
"15. Governing Law, Jurisdiction & Dispute Resolution
15.1 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India and subject to clauses 15.2 and 15.3, the jurisdiction of this Agreement shall be exclusively in the courts of New Delhi, India.
15.2 Negotiation: The Parties shall negotiate in good faith and use reasonable efforts to settle any dispute, difference or claim raised, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement including the construction, validity, execution, performance, termination or breach hereof (hereinafter referred to as `Dispute'). In the event that the Parties are unable to reach a resolution within 30 (thirty) days of the start of Dispute the same shall be settled by binding arbitration.
15.3 Arbitration: Any Dispute which is not settled by Mediation, shall be determined by Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. The Arbitration shall be conducted before a sole arbitrator appointed with the mutual consent of both Parties. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement on the choice of an arbitrator within 30 days of the Notice of Arbitration by either Party, the Parties shall approach the court of proper jurisdiction for appointment of arbitrator."
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. The petitioner invoked the arbitration vide notice dated 26th February, 2019 which was replied by the respondent on 20th March, 2019.
4. The arbitration agreement as well as notice of invocation are not disputed. Learned counsel for the respondent however disputes the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition. According to the respondent, Delhi is neither the seat of arbitration nor any cause of action arose at Delhi. The agreement was drawn at Ranchi; the agreement was signed at Lucknow and the place of performance/execution of the agreement was Patna, Bihar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of the hearing that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain this petition under clause 15.1 which specifically provides that the jurisdiction of the agreement shall be exclusively with the Courts at New Delhi. Reliance was placed on Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited, (2017) 7 SCC 678: Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 929: State of West Bengal v. Associated Contractors, (2015) 1 SCC 32: NJ Construction v. Ayursundra Health Care Pvt. Ltd., 2018(168) DRJ 274: Raman Deep Singh Taneja v. Crown Realtech Private Limited, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11966: Rohit Bhasin v. Nandini Hotels, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2300: Spentex Industries Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 258 DLT 138: and Virgo Softech Ltd. v. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12722.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent urged at the time of the hearing that clause 15.1 of the agreement is invalid as Delhi is not the seat of agreement; no cause of action arose at Delhi and the respondent does not wo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
