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