RITES LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter "the Act"), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to a contract for "Consulting Services for the Transport Demand Forecast Study" dated 27.07.2007 (hereafter "the Contract"). The Contract includes an arbitration clause, which is set out below:-

(2.) It is apparent from the above that the parties have agreed that the seat of arbitration shall be Goa. Thus, as explained by the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678, the Courts at Goa would have the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the arbitral proceedings. However, Mr Seth, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends to the contrary.

(3.) Mr Seth contends that the said decision would not come in the way of this Court in exercising jurisdiction since the entire cause of action has arisen within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and both the parties also have their principal offices located in Delhi. He further states that the Contract was also performed in Delhi. He earnestly contends that the decision of the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile would not be applicable in this situation. He submits that there is distinction between the subject matter of the arbitration and the subject disputes between the parties. He states that whilst the Courts at Goa may have the jurisdiction in regard to the subject matter of arbitration, but since the cause of action has arisen within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, therefore, this Court shall retain the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. He also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. v. Debdas Routh & Anr.,2017 SCCOnLine(Cal) 16379 and drew the attention of this Court to paragraphs 10 to 14 of the said decision.