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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
Raj Group A Registered Partnership Firm Rep. By Its Managing Partner – Appellant
Versus
India Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
AR NO.154 OF 2024



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, MANJULA NAIR, REVATHY M.A., GREESHMA T.G., ANNA JOS
For the Respondent: ASHA CHERIAN, SC

IMPORTANT POINT
The designation of a venue for arbitration also constitutes the seat, thus excluding jurisdiction of other courts as per party autonomy principles.

Headnote:

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Arbitration Request for appointment of an Arbitrator - Petitioner, a partnership firm, awarded a license for catering services at a railway station, seeks arbitration after being directed to cease renovation due to impending demolition - Respondents claim lack of jurisdiction based on venue stipulation. (Paras 1 - 8 )

(B) Jurisdiction - The court examined whether it had jurisdiction based on the arbitration agreement's venue clause and the jurisdiction clause favoring courts in Tamil Nadu - The court emphasized the principle of party autonomy and the distinction between 'venue' and 'seat' of arbitration. (Paras 5 - 8 )

Findings of Court:

The court found that the express designation of New Delhi as the venue indicates it is also the juridical seat of arbitration, thus excluding the jurisdiction of the court in Kerala. (Paras 6 - 8 )

Issues: The primary issue was whether the venue of arbitration being New Delhi ousted the jurisdiction of the Kerala court as per the agreement. (Paras 6 - 8 ) (E)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the explicit designation of the venue as New Delhi, combined with the jurisdiction clause favoring Tamil Nadu courts, confirmed that the parties intended to exclude other jurisdictions. (Paras 7 - 8 ) (F)

Result: The Arbitration Request is dismissed, with the right of the petitioner to approach the competent court reserved.

ORDER :

This Arbitration Request invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents.

2. Petitioner is a registered partnership firm which has been awarded the licence for the operation, maintenance and provision of catering services in the refreshment rooms (Kitchen Unit) at Ernakulam Town North Railway Station. Annexure A1 letter of intent evidencing the same had been issued to the petitioner on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner had accepted Annexure A1 and had entered into Annexure A2 formal agreement. Petitioner had paid to the 3rd respondent an amount of Rs.60,93,561/- towards licence fee and tax and commenced steps to set up the refreshment room in terms of the agreement between the parties. An interior designer was appointed and payments were made in the said respect as revealed in Annexures A3 and A4. An FSSAI registration and temporary power supply were also taken by the petitioner expending substantial amounts. The works pursuant to the agreement commenced on 02.07.2022 and to the dismay of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent on 16.07.2022 orally directed the petitioner to close down the refreshment room and to stop the renovation work in view of the re-construction of platform No.1 of the Railway Station. Petitioner contends that though this decision to demolish the existing building and to reconstruct the same was known to the 3rd respondent and to the Railway Authorities in advance, the same was not disclosed. The petitioner was made to enter into the agreement and remit licence fee and tax to the tune of Rs.60,93,561/- on 02.04.2022, only to be told within three months thereof that the entire building wherein the renovation was being carried out by the petitioner had been decided to be demolished. Petitioner had hence sought a refund of the amount spent by him towards renovation and reconstruction of the refreshment rooms. The 2nd respondent then offered to return the licence amount paid, but withheld Rs.1,84,362/- from the licence amount purportedly towards the value of the kitchen utensils offered by the respondents which were never taken possession of by the petitioner as he had requested permission to use his own utensils. Annexure A5 claim dated 27.10.2022 was hence preferred by the petitioner seeking to return an amount of Rs.12,44,582/- with interest. The same was replied to vide Annexure A6 letter dated 15.03.2023 rejecting the claim made. Hence the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in Annexure A2 agreement and vide Annexure A7 sought the matter to be referred to an independent Arbitrator. Though Annexure A7 invocation of the arbitration was received by the respondents, the same was not responded to. Hence the petitioner has filed this Arbitration Request invoking Section 11 of the Act seeking to appoint an Arbitrator.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4 producing Annexures R4 (A) to R4 (E) inter alia contending that the Arbitration Request is not maintainable before this Court as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Reliance is placed on Clause 5 of the General Conditions of Licence in Bid document, wherein it has been specifically stipulated that “The venue of the arbitration shall be New Delhi”. The clause regarding jurisdiction in Section 1 pertaining to General Provisions as part of the General Conditions of Licence is also pressed into service. The said clause reads as follows: “The award of License will be governed by the jurisdiction of court situated in the State of Tamil Nadu only.” As regards the address to which the notices to the Licensor have to be issued, Clause 2.7 of the Conditions governing the Performance of the License stipulate the same as Group General Manager, IRCTS Ltd., South Zone, 6A, The Rain Tree Place, No.9, Mc Nichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai - 600 031. Thus basin

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