ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LTD Vs. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek a declaration that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal stands terminated on the ground that the arbitral tribunal has failed to act without undue delay. A further direction is sought for reconstitution of the arbitral tribunal with a direction that the reconstituted tribunal continues the arbitration proceedings from the point where the existing arbitral tribunal had reached, and that it should conclude the proceeding within the next six months.

(2.) Upon issuance of notice, the respondent has filed its reply raising a preliminary objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition. However, no reply on merits has been filed by the respondent.

(3.) The submission of the respondent is that under their agreement called the Access & Services Agreement dated 01.05.2003, Clause 9.11, which deals with the aspect of jurisdiction, provides that "all disputes arising out of or relating to this contract shall be subject to sole jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai only". It is argued that the petitioner has preferred this petition at Delhi only because the petitioner is located at Delhi. Otherwise, no part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi. It is further argued that, in any event, even if a part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi, that by itself is not sufficient to clothe this Court with jurisdiction, as the Courts at Mumbai also have jurisdiction. It is claimed that a part of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai and the respondent has its principal place of business in Mumbai. It is argued that the parties can choose and restrict the Courts jurisdiction at a particular place while ousting the jurisdiction of all other Courts, if Courts at more than one place have jurisdiction to entertain the lis between the parties. The respondent submits that even though its registered office is at Kolkata, its principal office is located at Nariman Point, Mumbai and its steel plant is located at Dolvi, District Raigad, Maharashtra. The respondent had tendered, during the course of arguments in Court, an affidavit filed by its vicepresident (Legal) dated 13.05.2011 to substantiate its plea that the respondent's headquarter of business is situated in Mumbai and its corporate office is situated in Mumbai. It is further stated that its central marketing office is situated in Navi Mumbai. Various senior officers of the respondent such as the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Executive Director (finance), Director (corporate finance) etc. have their offices at Nariman Point, Mumbai. Various departments such as the marketing department, risk management department, export department, customer relationship management department etc. are also situated at Navi Mumbai. Approximately 350 people are working in the central marketing office and 150 people are working in corporate office in Mumbai/Navi Mumbai. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his submissions places reliance on the following decisions:-