INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. NPCC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the Petitioner is that due to the obdurate approach of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Respondent and the Arbitrator appointed by him, who is also an employee of the Respondent, its claim in arbitration has been thwarted for several years. It is in these circumstances that OMP 214/2002 Page 1 of 7 the present Petition has been filed with the prayer for terminating the mandate of the Arbitrator and for the appointment of a fresh Arbitrator.

(2.) At the threshold learned counsel for the Respondent has taken an objection that this Court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Respondent on Patel Roadways Ltd. vs. Prasad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514 , and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in B.B. Verma vs. NPCC Ltd., 80(1999) DLT 498 and two decisions delivered by me in Famous Construction vs. NPCC Ltd. in Suit No.615 of 1996 and Nellicka Cane Corporation vs. State Trading Corporation of India and Anr., 82(1999) DLT 396. Very recently I had occasion to consider this very question in Cement Corporation of India versus S.Sultan & Another in Suit No.2357-A/1997. After a detailed study of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hakam Singh vs. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286, ABC Laminart vs A.P. Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239, Patel Roadways (supra) and B.B. Verma (supra) I had, without adverting back to my judgments in M/s. Famous Construction (supra) and Nellicka Cane Corporation (supra) declined to exercise territorial jurisdiction in that case. In Cement Corporation of India (supra) I had found that no part of the cause of action had arisen in New Delhi and therefore there was no justification for the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court. The factual matrix, however, is totally different in the present case and is compounded by the attitude of the OMP 214/2002 Page 2 of 7 Chairman-cum-Managing Director of a Public Sector Undertaking, which, as I see it, is totally against the tenets of justice.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent relies on Special Conditions of Work Order, Clause 9.06 of which reads thus: