ZILLION INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD Vs. KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against orders passed by the 1st Additional District Court, N. Paravur, Ernakulam in two different Original Petitions, O.P.No.100 of 2016 and O.P.No.101 of 2016. The parties are the same. The original Petitions were filed by the first respondent under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) seeking interim orders of attachment. The District court has passed the orders appealed against, issuing ex parte orders of attachment. The appellant has filed these appeals challenging the said orders. The contentions of the appellant in both these cases is that, the 1st additional District Court, N. Paravur lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petitions. Since the parties are the same and the issues that arise for consideration identical, both the appeals are heard and disposed of together.

(2.) The appellant, a private limited company, has entered into a contract with the second respondent, M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited, for the erection of some plant and machinery. The appellant had given on sub contract certain components of the work undertaken by it to the first respondent herein under separate agreements entered into between them for the purpose. The agreements in both these appeals are identical. In the contract, it has been agreed between the parties that disputes if any that may arise between them shall be referred to or resolved through arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It has also been agreed upon that, the seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi. A further clause confining the jurisdiction in respect of any dispute/disputes arising out of the work order to the courts at New Delhi also forms part of the agreement. The contention that is advanced before us is that, in view of the exclusion of jurisdiction of all other Courts with respect to the disputes that may arise under the terms of the agreement, the 1st Additional District Court, N. Paravur does not have jurisdiction in the matter. Consequently, the orders appealed against are liable to be set aside, for want of jurisdiction. In view of the limited question that arise for consideration, other facts with respect to these cases are not relevant.

(3.) According to Advocate Naveen Sharma who appears for the appellant, in both these appeals, the parties have, by entering into a contract evidenced herein by Annexure A, agreed to the manner in which the disputes between them are to be resolved. Clause No.24 of Annexure A in Arbitration Appeal No.38 of 2016 provides that dispute/disputes arising out of the work order shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Act. The venue for arbitration shall be at New Delhi. The clause further provides that the Courts at New Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute/disputes arising out of the work order in question. Clause No. 23 of Annexure A in Arb.Appeal No.37 of 2016 is similarly worded. Therefore, according to the counsel, the parties have agreed upon and decided on the manner in which their disputes are to be resolved and also by agreement, stipulated that the courts in New Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction in the matter. For the above reason, it is contended that the District Court, Paravur does not have jurisdiction in the matter and has erred in passing the orders appealed against. The counsel places reliance on the Constitutional Bench Decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc [(2012)9 SCC 552] as well as State of West Bengal Vs. Associated Contractors [2015(1) SCC 32] and a Division Bench Decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jyothi Turbo Power Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd [2011 KHC 2499] to contend that once the parties have chosen the venue of arbitration under Sec. 20 of the Act only the Courts at the said place would qualify as "Court " under Sec. 2(1)(e) of the Act. Sec. 20, Sec. 2(i)(e) as well as Sec. 42 of the Act have been considered, interpreted and explained by the Apex Court in the said manner, according to the counsel. Therefore, it is contended that, these appeals are only to be allowed by setting aside the orders appealed against.