The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of a Court under the Arbitration Act is determined by the place where the cause of action arises and the interpretation of the jurisdiction clause in the contract, which should not exclude the jurisdiction of other Courts unless specific exclusionary language is used.

Judgment

In this application filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the petitioner has prayed for a direction for appointment of Arbitrator.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :-

Petitioner is a Registered Partnership Firm having its registered office at Gwalior. Petitioner-firm is a fleet owner, transport and material handling contractor whereas the respondents are joint venture company of M/s H.P.C.L. Ltd. and Mittal Engineering Investment Private Limited.

3. The offers were invited from registered contractors including the petitioner on 4-6-2008. In turn, on 27-6-2008 the petitioner had submitted his bid. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 18-7-2008 to the respondent that his price offer was most competitive. Again on 23-7-2008, petitioner submitted certain clarification regarding the aforesaid bid. On 25-7-2008, the respondent sent a fax of acceptance accepting the tender of petitioner on the terms and conditions of the tender document and schedule of rates. The petitioner was requested to deposit security under Clause 6 of the general conditions within ten days. Petitioner was also requested to contact the concerned Manager, who is Incharge of the work. The petitioner sent letter dated 26-7-2008 conveying his gratitude for fax of acceptance dated 25-7-2008 and intimated that he has approached bankers to issue a bank guarantee of Rs. 3,79,150/-within the period as specified above. The petitioner deputed Shri M.A. Khan, Deputy General Manager for doing the needful. The bank guarantee was obtained by the petitioner and was submitted before the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents sent detailed letter of acceptance to the petitioner on 27-8-2008. Formal written agreement on the stamp paper was signed on 30-8-2008 between the parties. The respondents terminated the contract on 19-8-2011. The petitioner demanded appointment of an arbitrator. In absence of response, he filed present A.C. whereas the respondents filed a petition for the same purpose before Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is also pending.

4. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contract was signed by the petitioner at Gwalior by way of correspondence. The letter of acceptance was also signed by him at Gwalior and, therefore, contract was formed at Gwalior, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 11 (6) of the Act. Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Contract Act) to submit that the communication of proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of a person to whom it is made. In the instant case, offer came to the knowledge of petitioner-firm for the first time when it received letter (Annexure A-1) in its registered office situated at Gwalior. By placing heavy reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. A. P. Agencies Salem, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (Paragraph 15), it is stated that the acceptance of offer results into formation of a contract and hence a proceedings can be filed in a Court within whose jurisdiction, acceptance was signed. By placing reliance on Paragraph 16 of the said judgment, it is stated that in absence of specific words in the Arbitration Clause, which excludes or ousts the jurisdiction of the other Courts, the jurisdiction will always be with a Court within whose territory cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen.

5. Shri Arvind Dudawat also placed reliance on M/s Progressive Constructions Ltd. Vs. Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., AIR 1996 Delhi Page 92. He relied on Paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 of the said judgment. To further support the said contention, he relied on American Pipe Company Vs. state of U.P., AIR 1983 Calcutta 186. He also relied on the foll