SEAHORSE MARINE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Vs. OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL SHB DHARTI-IV/CHERRY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Original Petition has been filed challenging the Arbitral Award dated 16.05.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

(2.) The seat of the Arbitration proceedings was at Hyderabad. The contract entered into between the parties, namely, the work order would also provide that in the event of any dispute or difference, the parties would settle it by initiating the arbitration proceedings as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the clause clearly stipulates the venue of the Arbitration will be at Hyderabad. The claimant whose claim has been rejected is the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) An initial objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the first respondent with reference to the jurisdiction. He would submit that since the Arbitration clause clearly provides the exclusive venue to be at Hyderabad and as the arbitral proceedings had also taken place at Hyderabad, this Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to hear the above Original Petition. He would also submit that the first respondent has filed a petition in O.P.No.1648 of 2015 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. He would also rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2017] 7 SCC 678 [INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED -VERSUS DATAWIND INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS]. He would further submit that the present petition be transferred to the Hyderabad to be heard along with O.P.No.1648 of 2015.