B R ELECTRICALS Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary issue of territorial jurisdiction circumscribes the scope of instant appeal, which aims at assailing an order dated 12.9.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') of the appellant, for lack of territorial jurisdiction and, thus, declining appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the alleged disputes between the parties, arising out of various contracts.

(2.) The relevant factual background giving rise to the question of territorial jurisdiction may be noticed briefly. On 21st August, 1991, the General Manager, Telecommunications (for short, 'GMT'), Srinagar, Kashmir, floated a tender for supply of PVC insulated twin galvanised wires. M/s. B.R.Electricals, appellant, made an offer/bid in response thereto by submitting its tender which was eventually accepted. An agreement dated 8.10.1991 was executed between the appellant and the GMT, which was followed by supply of goods as per specification. Later, similar or identical orders were placed with the appellant by various circle offices of the respondent No. 1 from different parts of the country for supply of the said goods and the appellant, accordingly, made supplies of the aforesaid goods. The respondents, however, failed to make the payments therefor. Consequently, an amount aggregating Rs.1,46,10,04,850.78 is claimed outstanding against them. Letters of request demanding payment of the said amount failed to evoke any response from the respondents. On the contrary, it is pleaded, a letter dated 22.12.1992 from the Divisional Engineer, Telecommunications at Kumbakanam dealt a rude shock to the appellant, whereby it was informed that in view of instructions from the Directorate, Department of Telecommunications (for short, 'DOT"), New Delhi, the payment of the outstanding amount of the bills raised by the appellant, could not be made.

(3.) A legal notice dated 1.2.1995 addressed to the respondents went abegging. The appellant sought to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court by making a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same was dismissed by an order dated 5.10.1994 holding that proper remedy for redressal of appellant's grievance lay in bringing a suit. It was in this situation that a petition under Section 8 of the Act was filed.