VIDHI MINERALS & ALLIED PVT.LTD., REPRESENTATION THOUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs. PARADIP PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PARADIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 3.5.2010 passed in ARBP No. 61 of 2010 by the learned District Judge, Cuttack rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act wherein the appellant prayed for restraining the respondent no.2 from lifting the stock of materials worth around 8.500 M.T. lying over Plot No. M -I at Paradeep Port Trust (in short 'PPT) in the name of the present respondent no.2.

(2.) THE learned District Judge has rejected the petition under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to decide the case in view of Clause -15 of the Memorandum of Understanding (in short 'MOU) entered into between the parties, which mandates that only Kolkata Courts can have jurisdiction in the matter. Clause -15 of the MOU reads as follows:

(3.) BEFORE averting to address the above question, it would be appropriate to take note of certain admitted facts of the case. Admittedly, the MOU was executed between the parties at nagpur. The materials, which are the subject matter of MOU have been stacked at Paradeep in the Paradeep Port Trust Area and Kolkata is the official address of the respondent no.2 where minutes of the meeting as at Annexure -4 were recorded and to which place the appellant sent a notice invoking the arbitration clause, addressed to the respondent no. 2. Thus, in view of the admitted position, the jurisdiction lies at any of the above places, i.e. either at Nagpur or Paradeep or Kolkata.