RANJAN AGENCIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under S3Ction 20 of the Arbitration Actpraying for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreementbetween the parties and also for referring the disputes arising between the partiesto the said sole arbitrator for adjudication and decision. It is stated in the petitionthat in the course of execution of the contract for construction of permanentcomplex for NSG at Manesar SH Construction of Trading Complex for SAG/SRCPockets certain disputes have arisen and the said disputes are required to bereferred to the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. According tothe said clause 25 in case of disputes and differences arising between the partiesin respect of and relating to various aspects of the contract the same shall bereferred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, incharge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be the Chief Engineer theAdministrative Head of the said CPWD at the time of such appointment. Thepetitioner has set out the areas o1 dispute in paragraph 9 of the petition.

(2.) The respondents have contested the petition on various arounds including thatof want of territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is stated by the respondent that thiscourt has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the tenders for thework 'Constriction of Training Blocks in SAG/SRG Pockets' were awarded to thepetitioner contractor by the Executive Engineer. National Security Guard ProjectDivision. Manesar, with the Headquarters office of the Division at Manesar. It isalso stated that the site of the work itself is at Manesar in Haryana and the tenderswere accepted by the Superintending Engineer with his office at Gurgaon inHaryana.

(3.) Counsel for the plaintiff however, states that since the appointing authority ofthe arbitrator is based at Delhi and therefore, this court shall have jurisdiction. Ihowever, cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inview of the decision of this court in Sushil Ansal Vs. Union of India, reported inAIR 1980 Delhi, page 45, the ratio of which was approved by the Full Benchdecision of this court in M/s. Gupta Sanitary Stores Vs. Union of India, reportedin AlR 1985 Delhi 122. In Sushil Ansal's case (supra) almost a similar issue cameup for consideration before this court and it was held that in respect of the contractwith the Union of India for carrying out flooring in certain buildings was entered intoat Kanpur which was accepted at Lucknow and amount of final bill for contractperformed was paid at Kanpur, the Delhi Courts shall have no jurisdiction toentertain the petition under Section 14 & 17 notwithstanding the fact that thearbitrator was appointed at Delhi and he made the sward at Delhi In the light ofthe aforesaid decision of this court approved by the subsequent Full Benchdecision of this court, I find sufficient force in the argument of the learned counseappearing for the respondent and in my considered opinion this court has noterritorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition filed by thepetitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Having held so, I order for returnof the petition to the petitioner to enable it to file the same in appropriate andcompetent court. The petition may be returned to the counsel appearing for thepetitioner immediately. No costs.