COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER Vs. DIPLOMAT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the learned court below, whereby the objections filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') against the award of the Arbitrator, were dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that a contract for repair of Central A.C. Plant at Bhatinda was executed between the parties on 22.4.1993. The work commenced on 21.5.1993 and was to be completed on 20.1.1994, but was completed on 16.6.1997. At the time of preparation of the final bill, the contractor (Respondent No. 1) asked for appointment of Arbitrator. He filed a petition before Delhi High Court. As during the pendency thereof, the Arbitrator was appointed, the same was withdrawn. The Arbitrator gave award on 13.11.2001, against which the Appellant filed objections before the learned court below, which were dismissed on 14.10.2003 on the ground that the court did not have the jurisdiction. It is against this order that the Appellant is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned court below dismissing the objections on account of jurisdiction is totally erroneous. He submitted that the agreement between the parties was entered into at Bhatinda. The work for which the agreement was entered into was to be executed at Bhatinda. The entire payments were made at Bhatinda. The courts at Bhatinda only had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute regarding that agreement. Merely because the contractor had his establishment at Delhi and at one given point of time, he filed a petition for appointment of Arbitrator before Delhi High Court, it cannot be said that only Delhi High Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain all disputes pertaining to arbitration in the present case. In fact, Delhi High Court did not have the jurisdiction and the petition filed by the contractor was ultimately withdrawn there and no opinion was expressed on merits. Referring to Section 42 of the Act, it was submitted that the word ''court'' mentioned therein would certainly be read as the court of competent jurisdiction, which has so been defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, jurisdiction of the dispute could be conferred on courts at Delhi.