The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Court where the initial application was made under the Arbitration Act governs the subsequent proceedings, and technical jurisdictional pleas should not be raised by legal entities.

R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 28.10.1999, passed by the learned counsel learned District Judge, Karnal, who dismissed the appeal of the Haryana Tourism Corporation (hereinafter called "the Corporation") by affirming the order dated 26.2.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karnal, who dismissed the objection under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, of the Corporation and made the award dated 30.11.1992 a rule of the Court.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. A dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S.P. Grover. The arbitrator gave the award dated 30.11.1992 in favour of the contractor Shri Bodh Raj Gupta and against the Corporation.

3. An application was moved for making the award a rule of the Court. The award was filed in the Court. Objections of the parties were called. Resultantly, the Corporation filed the objections under Section 30/33 of the Indian Arbitration Act.

4. The preliminary objection was that the Civil Court at Karnal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. According to the Corporation, the principal seat of the Corporation was allocated at Chandigarh. The work was executed at Ambala. The agreement was signed at Faridabad. Therefore, the Civil Court at Karnal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act as no part of cause of action arose at Karnal.

5. On merits, the award was also challenged on the plea that it is a non- speaking award and the Arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings. This aspect of the case was disputed by the contractor and the stand of the contractor was that earlier he made an application for the removal of the Arbitrator at Karnal on 12.9.1989 and this application was withdrawn on 11.6.1990. Since the steps had already been taken by the contractor at Karnal, therefore, all the subsequent applications are supposed to be filed at Karnal. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the Corporation which had already got the opportunity to contest the award. On merits, it was also the case of the contractor that the arbitrator had not misconducted himself or with the proceedings and, therefore, award has been rightly made the rule of the Court.

6. From the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed :-

1. Whether the present Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act ? OP Objector.

2. Whether the impugned award dated 30.11.1992 is liable to be set aside on the grounds alleged in the objection petition ? OP objector.

3. Whether the requisite Court fee stamp has not been affixed in the memo of objections and if so its effect ? OPR

4. Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings it was held by the trial Court that the Civil Court at Karnal had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application and the award is not liable to be set aside. Issue No. 3 was also decided against the objector. Resultantly, vide judgment dated 26.2.1997, the learned trial Court made the award a rule of the Court and granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 10,39,155/- with interest at the rate of 15% with effect from 1.12.1992 till payment.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Haryana Tourism Corporation filed the appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Karnal, who for the reasons given in paras No. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment dated 20.10.1999, dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by he said judgment the present revision has been filed.

8. I have heard Shri K.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri R.K. Vij, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone thr