ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Arbitration Application No. 41 of 2020 on the grounds of question of law as also for the reason that the petitioner could not appear to assist the Court.

2. Briefly stated facts are; the petitioner herein is a Government enterprise and respondent in the arbitration application, which was filed by the applicant-respondent herein under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the 1996 Act") seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator. The arbitration application was allowed having found that there exists a dispute between the parties; and there was proper invocation of the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 23.6.2012 entered into by the parties and the same not been controverted by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit therein.

3. Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order is sought to be recalled solely on the basis of question of law. Learned Counsel has referred to Sections 3, 4, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40 and 60 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, (for short, "the 2014 Act") notified on 01.03.2014, with its appointed day on 02.06.2014 to contend that even though the parties executed the agreement dated 23.06.2012 at the office of the petitioner at Hyderabad in the erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh, now that the place where the applicant undertook the work by virtue of the agreement falls within the residuary districts (Chittoor District) of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In view of Section 60 of the 2014 Act, it is deemed to have been executed in the domain of residuary district (Chittoor District) the 2014 Act has an overriding effect on the Act 1996, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration application and, therefore, the order is liable to be recalled.

4. Ms. Gayathri, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that Section 60 of the 2014 Act provides that all the existing contracts which are entered on or before the appointed day, in respect of the residuary district under Section 4 of the 2014 Act and part of the State of Andhra Pradesh are deemed to have been entered in that State, but the said provision cannot be made applicable in cases where the place (seat of Arbitration) has been chosen by the parties, which relates to jurisdiction of the Courts and choice is reserved to the parties to the agreement under Section 20 of the Act 1996. Learned Counsel has also referred to the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 23.06.2012 which reads as follows :

"The agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of India. In case of any dispute, the Courts at Hyderabad will have exclusive jurisdiction. In case of dispute are (sic or) difference arising between the Corporation and Contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such disputes or difference shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."

It is further stated that when the parties themselves have chosen the seat of Arbitration at Hyderabad; this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration application and it was rightly done so. It is also submitted that the 1996 Act which is a Code in itself has overriding effect on the provisions of the 2014 Act and, therefore, the application being devoid of any merits is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel relied on the case laws in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited, 2017 (4) ALD 120 (SC) : (2017) 7 SCC 678 and Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited, 2019 (6) ALD 13 (SC).

5. The core points that arise for consideration in this case are :

(i) Whether the jurisdictional clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Hyderabad by the parties under the agreement is to be maintained in exclu