UREKA ENGINEERS Vs. GOVT OF HARYANA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order disposes of two applications filed by the respondents/defendants/Govt. of Haryana. One is the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2014. The second application is the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi and which application was dismissed as infructuous in view of allowing of the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

(2.) Though, the provision of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act will not apply as rightly argued by the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff because what is challenged is not any action of the respondent/defendant under the contract which contained the arbitration clause, but an order dated 19.7.2013 black listing the petitioner/plaintiff with respect to future tenders/contracts to be issued/awarded by the respondents/defendants.

(3.) I have put it to counsel for the petitioner that even if the order allowing the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has to be allowed, the courts at Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction in view of para 33 and prayer clauses contained in para 34 as the plaint, and which read as under:-