JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:-Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Second Extra Joint District Judge Pune in Misc. Civil Application No. 702 of 2001 dated 10-7-2002 whereby the application made by the petitioner raising a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the Misc. Civil Application in the Pune Court was rejected.

2.Brief facts are as under :--

3.Petitioner is a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 by virtue of its share capital being held solely and exclusively by the State Government. Petitioner-company has been established with the sole objective of executing road development projects in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 is a Public Limited Company with whom the petitioner had entered into a contract for constructing a segment of the Mumbai-Pune Expressway being Segment 'C' from Kusgaon to Ozarde. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a written contract on 27-1-1998. Clause 5(1)(b) of the said contract which is relevant for the purposes of deciding the present application is reproduced hereinbelow:--

"The contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the governing law of India and also the laws in force in the State of Maharashtra and no suit or other proceeding relating to the contract shall be filed or taken by the contractor in any Court of law except in the High Court of Mumbai which shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all actions and proceedings in connection with and arising out of the contract and the contractor shall submit to the jurisdiction of the aforesaid for a Court of law for the purpose of any such action and proceedings."

4.It is an admitted position that certain disputes had arisen in respect of certain claims made by respondent No. 1 on the petitioner and the disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator Shri S.P. Upasani as per the terms of the contract. The sole arbitrator made an Award on 16-6-2001 rejecting the claims of respondent No. 1. This award was challenged by respondent No. 1 in the District Court at Pune by filing Misc. Civil Application No. 702 of 2001 under section 34 read with sections 18 and 28 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the Award.

5.The petitioner filed an application in the said Misc. Application and raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the Misc. Civil Application in the District Court at Pune in view of the ouster of jurisdiction of the other courts as per clause 5(1)(b) and, therefore, the petitioner prayed that the preliminary issue be framed regarding the maintainability of the Misc. Application in the Pune Court. A reply was filed by the respondent No. 1 to the said application and the District Court framed a preliminary, issue as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Pune. The District Court tried the said preliminary issue and by its order dated 10-7-2002 held that the Pune Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Application. Thus the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected. Petitioner has therefore preferred this Civil Revision Application challenging the order passed by trial Court.

6.It was submitted by the learned Court appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the District Judge had erred in holding that the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application by taking a hyper technical view that the nomenclature of the Bombay High Court is "High Court of Judicature at Bombay" and not "High Court of Mumbai" as stated in Clause 5(1)(b) of the Contract. He submitted that the District Judge ought to have appreciated that as per clause 5(1)(b) of the Contract, the High Court at Mumbai alone had a jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was further submitted that if clause 5(1)(b) was read as a whole, there was no manner of doubt that the jurisdiction of the other courts was expressly ousted. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (A.B.C. Laminart Pvt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document