SUNDER BUILDERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the petitioner for filing of Agreement No.30 of 1987-88 relating to the work of providing Kota Stone Flooring in Rajasthan Pavallion at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi and for reference of disputes which had arisen between the parties under the said contract to an Arbitrator. The petitioner was awarded the work of providing Kota Stone flooring in Rajasthan Pavallion at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi vide the aforesaid agreement. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner on 20/6/1988 requested the Chief Engineer (Building) Public Witness .D.,Jaipur to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudication of the said disputes. The following claims were sought to be referred to the Arbitrator. i)Claim no.1 The contractor claims a sum of Rs.1,50,232.49 on account of first and final bill for the work actually executed. ii)Claim no.2 The contractor claim a sum of Rs.2,300.00 on account of earnest money. iii)Claim No.3 The contractor claims a sum of Rs.2,340.00 on account of cost of Travelling Expenses. 15 visits at the rate of 156.00 per visit. iv)Claim No.4 The contractor claims a sum of Rs.20,000.00 on account of financial loss due to the late payment. v)Claim No.5 The contractor claims a sum of Rs.5,000.00 on account of Misc.expenses like postage stationary etc. etc. vi)Claim no.6 The contractor claims a sum of Rs.10,000.00 on account of compensation for hindrances. vii)Claim No.7 The contractor claims a sum of Rs.15,000.00 on account of legal expenses. viii)Claim No.8 The contractor claims a sum of Rs.5,000.00 on account of cost of arbitration. ix)Claim No.9 The contractor claims interest pendente-lit @ 18% p.a. from the date of notice i.e. 20/6/1988 till the date of payment.

(2.) The respondents having failed to appoint an Arbitrator this petition was filed. While invoking the jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the petition stated that the office of the respondent was situated at Rajasthan House, New Delhi, the contract was executed at New Delhi, the parties agreed in clause 51 that the territorial jurisdiction shall be at the place of the agreement, hence this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

(3.) In the written statement the respondents took a preliminary objection that this Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition inasmuch as the agreement was executed at Jaipur by the petitioner on the one hand and by the Executive Engineer, Public Witness .D., Construction Division II, Jaipur on the other. In terms of clause 51 of the agreement the Court which can have the jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties is the court within whose jurisdiction the agreement had been executed and no other court. Clause 51 of the agreement reads as under: "Clause 51In the event of any dispute arising between the parties hereto in respect of any of the matters comprised in this agreement, the same shall be settled by a competent court having jurisdiction over the place where agreement is executed and by no other court."