Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Waterbury Farrel, A Division of Magnum Integrated Technologies Inc – Appellant
Versus
Steel Authority of India Limited Salem Steel Plant – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of section 34 petition return. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties dispute new delhi as arbitration seat. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. venue is seat absent contrary indicia per bgs sgs. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. contract's exclusive jurisdiction clause and neutral venue option as contrary indicia. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. no subsequent party agreement on new delhi seat. (Para 11) |
| 6. 2015 amendment applies; first section 9 in madras hc confers jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 7. section 34 petition to be refiled in madras high court. (Para 17) |
ORDER
1.The revision petitioner had filed Arb.O.P.No.103 of 2019 before the Principal District Judge, Salem, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the A & C Act) challenging arbitral award dated 28.02.2019. The first respondent herein filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) and other relevant provisions to return the Section 34 petition for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction at New Delhi. By order dated 02.12.2021, said petition was allowed and the revision petitioner was permitted to re-present the petition before the court of competent juris
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
