BAIJ NATH ASHARFI LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been directed against the order dated July 26, 1982 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for directing the Arbitrator to file the Award in the Court so that the same could be made Rule of the Court was declined after holding that the Court at Chandigarh, has no territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the said application.

(2.) THE brief facts are that tenders were invited for execution of some work at Ludhiana. The petitioner-firm applied in response thereto and having submitted the lowest tender, its offer was accepted. The agreement to execute the work was entered into between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D. (B&R), Ludhiana at Ludhiana only. Some dispute having arisen between the parties, it was referred to the Arbitrator for resolution thereof and the arbitration proceedings too were held at Ludhiana. It was after the passing of the Award by the Arbitrator that the application was moved by the petitioner before the Civil Court at Chandigarh to direct the Arbitrator to file the Arbitration Award so that it could be made the Rule of the Court. Upon an objection taken on behalf of the State of Punjab that the Court at Chandigarh lacked territorial jurisdiction, an issue was framed as to whether the Court at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to try the petition or not. This issue was answered by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh against the petitioner and consequently the application afore-mentioned was dismissed.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the tender for the execution of work was floated at Ludhiana; the agreement was also entered into between the parties at Ludhiana; the work was executed at Ludhiana and the dispute having cropped up between the parties the arbitration proceedings were also held at Ludhiana which led to the passing of the Award in favour of the petitioner. Thus, no cause of action or part thereof arose outside Ludhiana, namely, at Chandigarh, which could confer jurisdiction upon the Civil Court at Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that since acceptance of the tender was communicated to it vide Exhibit P-1 at Chandigarh, a part of cause of action had actually arisen at Chandigarh, as held by the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 S.C. 1239. A pointed reference has been made on behalf of the petitioner to the observations made by their Lordships in paras 11 and 15 of the report.