BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. GENERAL CONTRACTOR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Court of the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhuj in special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1988 below application Exh. 23 refusing to raise an issue as to the jurisdiction as preliminary issue, by invoking the aids of provisions of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for short).

(2.) The material facts giving rise to the present petition may be stated. For the work of the petitioner for which tenders were invited by it, the respondent submitted the tender wherein one of the terms and conditions was as under : "5.2. Effect and jurisdiction of the contract : The contract shall be considered as having come into force on the date of letter of intent. This contract shall in all respects be governed by and construed according to the laws in force in the Republic of India during the period of contract. The civil Courts having ordinary original Civil jurisdiction, New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in regard to all claims in respect of this contract." There is also an arbitration clause in the tender condition accepted by the respondent on the basis of which it had filled in the tender. It also provides that the dispute that may arise between the parties shall be subject to arbitration and the venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi and that condition is condition No. 43-D. The respondent had along with submission of tender, paid Rs. 20,000.00 to the petitioner as earnest money, for the contract work for which tenders were invited. There was a dispute between the parties. Therefore, Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1988 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Bhuj. The petitioner which is the original defendant had submitted application Ex. 23 in the trial Court on 7-8-1990 requesting the Court to raise a preliminary issue of law for deferring raising of other issues. The following issue of jurisdiction was sought :- "Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case ?" The defendant prayed that the said issue of jurisdiction should be tried and decided first as it pertains to law only.

(3.) After hearing the learned Advocates of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, the trial Court rejected the application Ex. 23 on 26-11-1992. Therefore, this revision against that order by the original defendants.