Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. now known as More Retail Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Biren Sahni – Respondent
CR No. 6898 of 2023
Decided On : 05-01-2024
Judgment
Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
The petitioner assails order dated 15.5.2023, passed by learned Commercial Court, Ludhiana, vide which a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to, in short, as ‘the Act’), has been returned back to the petitioner, after 5 years of its institution on the ground that the Court at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction and that the same is to filed in the Courts at Delhi.
2. A few facts, necessary to notice are that the respondent is owner of a plot situated in Ludhiana which he had leased out in favour of the petitioner. A ‘Memorandum of Agreed Terms’ (MOAT) dated 28.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) with regard to said lease was executed at Ludhiana. The said MOAT provided for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration. The relevant extract from MOAT, pertaining to arbitration reads as under:
ARBITRATION:
In case of any disputes and differences arising out of the Lease, between the Lessor and the Lessee shall be settled mutually between the PARTIES, failing which the same shall be settled by arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the then prevailing Arbitration laws.
The venue for arbitration shall be at Delhi and the proceedings shall be conducted in English only.
3. A perusal of aforesaid arbitration clause reveals that it is only the ‘venue’ of arbitration which had been agreed upon by the parties in the MOAT (Annexure P-1) and no ‘seat’ of arbitration was specifically or impliedly designated by the parties.
4. Some relevant development which took place ever since a dispute arose amongst the parties are stated herein-under, chronologically:
| 11.09.2009 | Respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act in this Court (Annexure P-8). |
| 16.11.2010 | High Court ordered for appointment of an Arbitrator (Annexure P-10). |
| 27.03.2017 | A ‘Majority Award’ (Annexure P-11) was passed by two arbitrators against the petitioner whereas ‘Minority Award’ (Annexure P-12) by one arbitrator was passed in favour of the petitioner. However, there was no determination of seat by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 20 (2) of the Act. |
| 30.5.2017 | Although, the Majority Award was in favour of the respondent, yet the respondent filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the Commercial Court at Ludhiana, i.e. Arbitration Case No. 1855 of 30.5.2017 (Annexure P-13) so as to seek some enhancement by way of modification of majority award. |
| 3.7.2017 | The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the Commercial Court at Ludhiana, i.e. Arbitration Case No. 1859 of 3.7.2017 (Annexure P-14) seeking setting aside of the Majority Award. Petitioner categorically mentioned therein that Ludhiana Court has the jurisdiction. |
| 11.07.2018 | Respondent filed his reply dated 11.7.2018 (Annexure P-16) to the petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by petitioner at Ludhiana. In reply to para 19 of the petition regarding jurisdiction at Ludhiana, the respondent did not specifically deny the averments regarding jurisdiction but simply replied that the same is a matter of record. |
| 12.03.2022 | The respondent filed an application for execution of the Majority Award vide Execution Application No. 501 of 2022 (Annexure P-17) in the Court at Ludhiana. |
| 14.05.2022 | Respondent unconditionally withdrew ‘Arbitration Case No. 1855 of 2017’ by simply stating that he does not wish to pursue ‘modification’ of the award, as is evident from order dated 14.5.2022 (Annexure P-18). |
| 28.09.2022 | Subsequently, an application dated 28.9.2022 (Annexure P-19) under Section 151 CPC was filed by respondent seeking dismissal of objection petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Act, on the ground that the Court at Ludhiana does not have jurisdiction to entertain th |
AI
The seat of arbitration is the place where the arbitration proceedings are held and not the place where the cause of action arose. The courts at the seat of arbitration have exclusive jurisdiction to....
Point of law: Where any disputes arise between parties in respect of or in connection with the agreement then parties shall first endeavour to conciliate the disputes failing which the same shall be ....
The jurisdictional seat of arbitration was Panchkula in Haryana, and not Delhi, as the arbitrator had fixed the jurisdictional seat under Section 20(2) of the Act before any party had moved the court....
Point of Law : There was concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the courts ceased with subject matter in dispute and the courts where arbitration was carried out.
The determination of the arbitration 'seat' and 'venue' is critical; if the 'venue' does not specify a 'seat', jurisdiction lies with the designated court under the arbitration agreement.
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
