EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Vs. INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in which the petitioner/finance company has sought an injunction restraining the respondent/hirer from dealing with the assets leased by the petitioner to the respondent under a Master Lease Agreement entered into between the parties on 15th March, 2018. The petitioner has alleged outstanding rental dues as on the date of termination of the Agreement and has sought for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the assets together with an order directing the respondent to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 75,19,388/-.

(2.) The respondent has raised a point of maintainability of the application on the ground that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application as would be evident from the pleadings and documents as also the relevant provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(3.) According to Mr. Rohit Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court as the entire transaction has taken place at the petitioner s Head Office in Sector V, Salt Lake and at the respondent s registered office in Sector II, Salt Lake. Counsel relies on the arbitration clause and the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract which refers to the greater city of Kolkata and does not refer to the High Court at Calcutta. Counsel relies on Golden Edge Engineering Private Limited Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited in A.P. No.191 of 2020; Debdas Routh Vs. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited,2018 AIR(Cal) 322 and M/S Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. Vs. M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. in G.A. No.3647 of 2016 with AP No. 966 of 2016. Counsel submits that even otherwise the parties could not have chosen the seat of arbitration to be that part of the city which is within the jurisdiction of this Court when no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel relies on Hakam Singh Vs. Gammon (India) Ltd. , 1971 AIR(SC) 740, A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem , 1989 AIR(SC) 1239, Khazana Projects & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in F.M.A. No.2748 of 2016 for the proposition that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court where there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction.