GAMMON INDIA LTD. Vs. HAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the decision of an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the courts of Varanasi to entertain an application Under Sec. 20 of the; Indian Arbitration Act for referring the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause in the contract entered into by the parties.

(2.) In defence, Clause 13 of the contract was relied upon to sustain the plea that courts at Bombay alone had jurisdiction. Clause 13 reads thus:

(3.) The question that arises is whether any part of the cause of action arose at Bombay so that in view of Clause 13 of the agreement the courts at Varanasi had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for reference of the dispute to arbitration. Munshi Ambika Prasad, appearing for the opposite party, has raised a preliminary objection. He has urged that the aforesaid question is concluded by findings of fact based on the assessment of evidence on the record and in a revision this Court is not entitled to reassess the evidence and record its own finding. I am unable to accept this submission. The vital point, as I shall show a little later, is whether the court below was, by law, empowered to permit evidence, to be adduced on this question. If it was not entitled to do so the, court has clearly, exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. This apart, the question whether any part of the cause of action arose at Bombay is a jurisdictional fact, the decision of which will determine the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application. The finding on such a fact is amenable to scrutiny in a revision, see Ch. Jagdish Prasad, v/s. Ganga Prasad Chaudhary : 1959 Supp. 1 SCR 733 and Deep Chand Jain v/s. Board of Revenue UP Alld., 1966 ALJ 113. The preliminary objection cannot, therefore, be sustained.