RANJAN KUMAR DASH Vs. SOLE ARBITRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, inspite of interim order dtd. 24/9/2019 obtained by her client from Consumer District Forum, Boudh, interim measure by order dtd. 3/10/2019 was made in the reference being conducted in Chennai. Her clients are unable to participate in the reference, having obtained credit facilities for purchasing the vehicle here in Odisha. She submits, the consumer disputes case is pending. As such, the reference could not have been commenced. She prays for adjournment to rely on authority.

(2.) Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of the finance company. He submits, there is clear clause in the agreement regarding Courts in Chennai alone having exclusive jurisdiction on matters arising out of the agreement. Furthermore, if petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order, appeal lies under sec. 37 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As such, prayer for vacating interim order made by his client in the interim application be allowed.

(3.) The agreement says it was made at the place and date mentioned in the schedule. The schedule says the agreement was made in Chennai. Jurisdiction clause 30 says the agreement has been accepted and executed by the company at Chennai and, inter alia, payment shall be observed and performed at Chennai. When cause of action arises in more than one place parties may agree Courts at one of the two places will have exclusive jurisdiction. Court does not have before it any pleading from the finance company to show what part of the cause of action arose in Odisha, for there to be agreement on exclusive and ouster of jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is also no pleading on side of the finance company regarding pendency of the consumer disputes case. Thirdly, coordinate Bench passed the interim order on 23/12/2019 and the interim application to vacate it appears to have been made in August, 2021.