NOMULA BROTHERS Vs. RUCHI WORLDWIDE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the award dated 24th August, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator of Cotton Association of India. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of this arbitration petition in this court. Since the respondent has raised an objection about the maintainability of this petition in this court, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the issue of maintainability of this petition in this court only.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the first instance invited my attention to the purchase order annexed to the notice of motion which was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. She submits that in the said purchase order it was clearly mentioned that the head office of the respondent is situated at Indore (M.P.). My attention is also invited to the annextures to the said purchase order which provides that the contract incorporated the rules and bye-laws of the Cotton Association of India in force at that time when the said contract was entered into. All disputes will be settled amicably or will be referred to arbitration in accordance with the rules and bye-laws of the Cotton Association of India. It is provided that the said contract was subject to Indore jurisdiction.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that no part of cause of action had arisen at Mumbai. It is submitted that since the head office of the respondent was situated at Indore, part of the cause of action had arisen at Indore and thus in view of the agreement between the parties conferring the jurisdiction on Court in Indore, the application filed by the petitioner under section 34 could have been filed only in the appropriate court at Indore.