Skip to main content

Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd., C.A. No. 5850 of 2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna, Case Number : C.A. No. 5850 of 2019 25-07-2019

Brahmani River Pellets Ltd.

v.

Kamachi Industries Ltd.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 (6) - Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts.



Question of Law

Whether the Madras High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite the fact that the agreement contains the clause that venue of arbitration shall be Bhubaneswar ?


In the present case, the parties have agreed that the “venue” of arbitration shall be at Bhubaneswar. Considering the agreement of the parties having Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration, the intention of the parties is to exclude all other courts. As held in Swastik, non-use of words like “exclusive jurisdiction”, “only”, “exclusive”, “alone” is not decisive and does not make any material difference. When the parties have agreed to have the “venue” of arbitration at Bhubaneswar, the Madras High Court erred in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Since only Orissa High Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Act, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned order of the Madras High Court in OP No.398 of 2018 dated 02.11.2018 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The parties are at liberty to approach the Orissa High Court seeking for appointment of the arbitrator. [Paras 16 - 18]

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S.Santanam Swaminadhan,Adv. Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -  Section 438 -   Grant of Anticipatory Bail -  While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]