M/S MAHASHIV PROMOTOERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HARYANA STATE ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition lays challenge to order dated 28.8.2014 (Annexure P-8) passed by the District Judge, Panchkula, whereby application (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner to challenge territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Panchkula to entertain the objection petition, was dismissed.

(2.) The brief backdrop of the case is that the respondents issued a notice inviting bid for appointment as entrepreneur/agent for collection of toll at toll point No. 2 Gurgaon-Pataudi-Rewari Road KM 24 near Gurgaon.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would contend that dispute between the parties pertains to collection of toll at toll point No. 2 Gurgaon-Pataudi Rewari Road, therefore, cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Gurgaon and thus an objection petition against the award would be competent in the Court of District Judge, Gurgaon. It is further submitted that the objection petition preferred by the petitioner was filed prior in time to the objection petition preferred by respondent No. 1 and once the court at Gurgaon is seized of the matter, the order passed by the District Judge, Panchkula cannot be allowed to sustain. It is further argued that the judgment relied upon by court below M/s Swastik Gases P. Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2013 9 SCC 32 has got no bearing on the facts of the case in hand because in the said case, the agreement contains jurisdictional clause 18 to the effect that the agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata and in those circumstances, it was held that in view of intention of the parties explicitly contained in the agreement, territorial jurisdiction of the courts other than that of Kolkata is excluded. The last submission made by counsel is that in absence of any such clause in regard to jurisdiction of a particular court in the agreement between the parties to present lis, the respondents cannot derive any advantage to their contention from the ratio laid down in Swastik Gases P. Limited's case . On the contrary, in support of his contentions, he has referred to judgment of the Apex Court Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Limited and another, 2006 1 SCC 751, wherein while dealing with clause 27.4.2 of the general condition of purchase, it was held that contention of the petitioner that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties is erroneous and baseless assumption as the tender document or the invitation to bid of BINDAL (containing the "instructions to bidders" and the "General Conditions of Purchase") by itself is neither an agreement nor a contract.