COTMAC COY Vs. RALLIS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the respondent in AC.5 cf 1974 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Hubli.

(2.) PURSUANT to an agreement in relation to supply of cotton entered into between the petitioners and the respondent dispute arose in regard to alleged default committed by the petitioners in respect of the supply under 4 cotton contracts. The agreement entered into between the petitioners and respondent provided for arbitration by two arbitrators, one to be apponted by each of the parties and such arbitrators appointed choosing their own ummire. The dispute had to be decided by the Arbitrators at Bombay. The agreement did not contain any particular time with which the arbitrators had to give their award. Therefore, in accordant with the first, schedule to the Arbitration Act. award had to be given within four months from the date of entering' on the reference. As it was not possible for such an award being made within time, the respondent fifed an application under S.28 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the Civil Judge, Hubli, for extention of time. The application was filed on 17-4-74 end the prayer was to extend the time till 21-8-74 on the basis that the date of entry on reference was 21-12-73 and the period of four months world expire on 21-4-74. This application was registered as Arbitration Case 5 of 1974, By virtue of the adiqurnments taken, and the award proceedings not having been proceeded with, resnondpnt filed the application IA-I on 21-8-74 for an amendment to the original application so as to extend the time by another three months. The application purported to be under S.148 read with S.151 CPC. This was opposed on behalf of the petitioners contending that the Court had no jurisdietion to entertain the original application itself and therefore could not entertain this application for amendsment also and that it should be dismissed. I may mention that though in the objection statement filed objection raised was that the application under S.148 read with S.151 was not maintainable, it is clear that the point urged before the learned Civil Judge was as above.

(3.) IT is contended by Shri W.K.Joshi learned Counsel for the petitioners, that under S.31 of the Arbitration Act, Hubli Court would not have jurisdiction because the contract had been entered into at Bailhongal which was in Belgaum District and outside the jurisdiction of the Court at Hubli. Shri Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent, has urged that this contention is without any substance and under the terms of the contract it is clear that the performance of the contract was at Hubli and the breach alleged has occurred at that place and by virtue of S.2 (c) of the Arbitration Act, the Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject-matter of the reference would be the Court which could try the suit if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. He submitted that the cause of action accrued at Hubli within the jurisdiction of Hubli Court and the Civil Judge's Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.