The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the requirement for cause of action to arise within the jurisdiction of the Court. The judgment also underscores the importance of providing reasoned judgments.

Judgment

Sanjay Dhar, J.—The appellant abovenamed has filed the instant petition under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’) against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the learned Commercial Court (Additional District Judge), Jammu hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commercial Court’) whereby the petition of the appellant/petitioner filed under Section 9 of the Act has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that on 21.08.2020, Jammu and Kashmir Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JKRTC’) through its Managing Director invited e-tender vide its Notice No. JKRTC/GML/CHT/2020-22/KMR/359 for supply of Trucks (HCVs/LCVs) for various Stations of Kashmir province, for two years viz. for the years 2020-2022. The bidding process was through online mode and the technical bids were to be opened on 09.09.2020 at 2:00 p.m. Certain conditions with regard to eligibility were prescribed in the tender notice and the bidders were required to upload the requisite documents along with their offers. It appears that the appellant/petitioner as well as respondent No.9 herein responded to the aforesaid tender notice and submitted their offers online. JKRTC, after finding that the appellant/petitioner as well as respondent No.9 have qualified the technical bid, opened the financial bid, whereafter contract in respect of Clusters bearing Code K-1 to K4 was allotted in favour of respondent No.9, whereas contract in respect of Clusters bearing Code K-5 and K-6 was allotted to New J&K Roadways, Srinagar. Allotment of contract in respect of Cluster K-7 was made in favour of appellant/petitioner.

3. According to the appellant/petitioner, respondent No.9 was not eligible to participate in the bidding process as it was not a registered transport firm. It is averred that respondent No.9 had not uploaded the requisite documents along with its offer. On this ground, it is urged that allotment of contract in favour of respondent No.9 is not in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that the tender document contains an arbitration clause which reads as under:

“Any dispute arising between the Corporation and any tenderer in respect of the tender or process undertaken therein shall be referred to Arbitrator under the provisions of J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to the arbitration of Administrative Department”.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the action of JKRTC, whereby the contract for supplying of vehicles for certain clusters was allotted to respondent No.9, the appellant/petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the learned Commercial Court, Jammu seeking an interim injunction to stay the following actions of the official respondents:

“(i) decisions taken by the official respondents to declare the private respondents No.9 and 10 qualified in the Technical Bid;

(ii) order No. JKRTC/GM/Load/Plg&Sts/392 dated 17.09.2020 issued by respondent No.3/4 whereby respondent No.9 has been declared as qualified in the Technical Bid and fixed the contract of transportation for engagement of Civil Hire Transport (CHT) contractors to meet the left over demand of JKRTC for various designated clusters/stations viz. Cluster Code K-1, K-2, K-3 and K-4 in Kashmir province for the year 2020-22 (for 2 years)”.

5. The aforesaid petition was contested by JKRTC as well as by respondent No.9 herein by filing their separate replies thereto. JKRTC in its reply before the learned Commercial Court, besides contesting the petition on merits, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, Jammu to entertain the petition. According to the said respondent, no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of learned Commercial Court, Jammu, as such, the petition could not be entertained by the said Court.

6. Respondent No.9 in its reply before the learned Commercial Cour