UNION OF INDIA Vs. S.R. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed against the order dated 28.8.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the plaint of the appellant was returned while accepting the application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the respondents against the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act ) on the ground that the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the objections filed by the appellant-Union of India as the arbitration agreement was executed between respondent No.l and CWE AF on 30.7.1992 and CWE shifted his office to AF Tughalakabad, New Delhi much before the appointment of Arbitrator and all the arbitration proceedings were attended by the CWE AF Tughalakabad, New Delhi and as per Section 31(5) of the Act received arbitral award at Delhi as also on the other grounds.

(2.) While praying for setting aside the said order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the very application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC was not maintainable as it did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Secondly, the Arbitrator in the present case was appointed by the Contractor from the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh. As per Section 42 of the Act, the jurisdiction in the present matter alone has to be exercised by the Chandigarh Courts. Thirdly, the question of jurisdiction is required to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, which they did before this very Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and lastly, the Court at Chandigarh could not have returned the plaint on the ground that the office of the Commander Works Engineer, AF, Chandigarh has been transferred to CWE AF Tughalakabad, New Delhi as the office of Commander Works Engineer, AF is even, as on date, in Chandigarh and only work has been transferred to CWE AF Tughalakabad, New Delhi. Reliance was placed on the condition No.71 of the IAFW 22-49 general conditions of contract to contend that the place of jurisdiction is the place from where the tender is accepted.

(3.) Respondent No.l is present in person and argued the matter in person. It is contended by him that:-