HARUANA BREWERIES LIMITED Vs. HARYANA BEER AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, the plaintiff prays for reference of the disputes between the parties, enumerated in para 13 to the sole Arbitration of the Managing Director of Haryana Breweries Limited and also the Arbitrator to be directed to file the original award together with original records of the proceedings for the purpose of making the award rule of the Court.

(2.) THAT in the petition/plaint it is the say of the plaintiff that the it is a Government Undertaking engaged in the manufacture of beer with brand names of Rosy Pelican Beer, Black Partridge, Boxer, Bordie Pilsner etc. etc.. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 being partners therein entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on or about 30.6.1978 whereby defendants were appointed as stockist for the sale of various brands of beer of the plaintiff. THAT on or about 6.10.1982, defendants informed the plaintiff that 500 dozens of Black Partridge and 250 dozens of Rosy Pelican bottles of beer have become flat. Consequently, the plaintiff got the goods inspected by Senior Brewery Master and the same were found to be flat. Thereafter vide letter dated 16.10.1982 the plaintiff called upon the defendants to forward the said quantity of beer to their factory for reprocessing and returning the same to the defendants after getting the necessary permission from Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad; that the plaintiff gave consent letter for replacing the said flat beer as required by the Excise Department; that the age of the beer is 2 to 4 months after which it becomes flat. The same can be used only after reprocessing; that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to replace the said beer to the defendants after reprocessing the same; that the payment of excise duty on those flat beer is the subject matter of appeal filed by the defendants against the decision of the Excise authorities; that the plaintiff called upon the defendants to clear the liability of Rs.1,22,637.55 as against them. The plaintiff by a legal notice called upon the defendants to pay off the aforesaid amount which did not include a sum of Rs.99,000.00 which was the subject matter of appeal filed by the defendants in connection with the flat beer; that Clause 15 of the agreement dated 30.6.1978 contains an arbitration clause between the parties and pursuant to the said clause all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the agreement are required to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director of the plaintiff company for adjudication; that 18% interest is payable under the terms and conditions of the contract if the amount remained unpaid within the stipulated period of 30 days; that disputes enumerated in para 13 of the plaint have arisen between the parties which fall within the ambit of Clause 15 of the agreement; that the cause of action for these proceedings has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court as the plaintiff has its Marketing Division and Head Office at New Delhi and all the correspondence and payments were made at New Delhi; that the defendants were to place orders with Marketing Division of the company at Delhi. On these averments, the plaintiff prays for the relief aforestated more specifically enumerated in para 13 of the plaint.

(3.) IT has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem AIR 1989 SC 1239 and (1989) 2 SCR 1, that "where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit conseqauent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen therewithin, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves the agreement would be valid. If such a contract is clear unambiguous and explicit and not vague it is not hit by Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act". I am in respectful agreement with the proposition of law that when more than one court is having jurisdiction to try the suit, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such court, would be valid and not against public policy.