STATE Vs. RANJEET CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, dated 6-8-1984 in Misc. Application No. 138 of 1984. That was an application under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The State of Maharashtra, which was the Opponent in the matter, in its say Exh. 9 contended that the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. According to the State tenders were called for construction of a Hostel at Kolhapur. The Applicant's tender having been accepted, the contract was signed on 11-4-1979 at Kolhapur, and the work was to be finished within 30 months expiring on 10-10-1981. A dispute having arisen with respect to such a contract, the Applicant, Respondent herein, invoking Clause 30 of the contract, called upon Superintending Engineer to arbitrate. The Superintending Engineer entered upon arbitration. But in view of clarification letter dated 30-9-1983 issued by the Government to the Superintending Engineer not to proceed with the arbitration, the arbitrator closed the proceedings. The applicant, therefore, moved the Court under S. 8 (1) (b) for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Applicant while not disputing the above facts contended that his tender was accepted by the Government and the acceptance was communicated to him at his Head Office situate at Pune. The Applicant was asked to deposit security amount within 10 days and he made the security deposit. Upon such deposit by the letter dated 31-3-1979 addressed to his Head Office at Pune, he was informed that his tender was accepted finally. He, therefore, claimed that the Pune Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Trial Court held that as part of the cause of action accrued at Pune, the Pune Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and accordingly answered the preliminary issue framed in this behalf in favour of the Applicant-Respondent herein.

(2.) That the tender was accepted by the Government and communicated to the Applicant at his Pune address where he carries on business is admitted. Though the contract itself was formally executed at Kolhapur, that was in pursuance of the acceptance of the tender communicated to the Applicant at Pune. The contract itself does not specify any Court in particular as having jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising under that contract. In the absence of any such specific stipulation in the agreement, the Court within the jurisdiction of which part of the cause of action arises, has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Cause of action comprises of a bundle of facts and all these facts may not necessarily occur within the jurisdiction of the same Court. Part of the cause of action may arise within the jurisdiction of one Court and part within the jurisdiction of another Court. Section 20 of the C. P. C. lays down that subject to the limitations in Ss. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of C. P. C. , every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. When the acceptance of the tender was communicated by the Opponent-Government to the applicant at Pune, it must be held that the part of cause of action arose at Pune and, therefore, he could have filed a suit at Pune. So also the Opponent which is Government can be said to be carrying on its business throughout the State, therefore, the Court at Pune had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The objection of the Opponents-Petitioners herein, that the petition should have been filed in a Court at Kolhapur, because the contract was accepted in Kolhapur, is untenable. The application was one for appointment of an Arbitrator; it was not a suit for a declaration of recovery of any immovable property which under S. 17 has to be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the property is situate. No doubt the Kolhapur Court would also have jurisdiction and if the petition were filed in Kolhapur Court, no valid objection could have been taken to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Petition. The question is : Has the Pune Court territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Petition? Where several Courts have jurisdiction, it is left to the applicant or plaintiff to file the petition or to institute the suit in whichever of those Courts he liked. Quite apart from the above, this technical objection comes with ill-grace from the State. It makes no difference so far as the State is concerned whether such a petition is filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune or at Kolhapur. The matter relates to a contract of 1979. The Government which had submitted to the arbitration of its own Superintending Engineer, ought not to have taken such an objection. Whatever right it may have on merits in the arbitration proceedings, if arbitration proceedings are maintainable, whether another Arbitrator is appointed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune or Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kolhapur does not affect them in the least. The Government could very well have opposed the application on merits and not on such a technical objection. I do not see any reason to set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, and accordingly this Civil Revision Application will have to be rejected.

(3.) When this matter came up before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, the Government filed an application requesting that this application be decided 'first'. The objection was "clause 30 of the agreement on which the applicant is relying is not an arbitration clause and hence the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator as prayed by the applicant. " The State raised this question on 3-5-1985 in this Court by way of amendment of memo of Civil Revision Application, this ground was obviously raised having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 1522. Though the trial Court has not decided this issue, the Applicant raised this question in order to shorten the litigation. The Opponents-Petitioners herein have also for from objecting to this question being decided by this Court in revision, invited a decision thereon. I, therefore, proceed to consider this question in exercise of the powers of superintendence vested in this Court.