TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD Vs. BAGARIA MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matter comes up on an application for further directions. It has been submitted that petition was admitted on 13.12.2017 when the interim order dated 10.11.2016 was confirmed. Resultantly, proceedings in the objections to the award dated 21.10.2015 passed at Bangalore an agreed venue - before a civil court in District Sikar in the State of Rajasthan was stayed on the ground of prima facie lacking territorial jurisdiction. It has been submitted that however on a misplaced reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Cr. Appeal No. 1375-1376/2013) , the trial court is seeking to take further proceedings on the respondent-objector's section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act of 1996') application despite the confirmed stay order of this Court therea gainst on the ground that six months since the passing of this Court's interim order have already lapsed.

(2.) Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Counsel with Mr. M.S. Rajpurohit appearing for the petitioner-applicant seeking formal further extension of the confirmed stay order dated 10.11.2016 submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) does not attract to the instant proceedings as the direction of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case related to proceedings in trial of Civil and Criminal Cases and do not attract to a situation as one obtaining in the instant case where the Court has after hearing the parties in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India passed a stay order. It has been submitted that even otherwise the Civil Court at Sikar in Rajasthan State has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the objections against an award passed pursuant to an arbitration clause in an agreement dated 1.10.2008 making Hosur in the State of Tamil Nadu the venue for arbitration and another clause also giving exclusive jurisdiction for all disputes arising from the agreement between the parties to the courts at Hosur in Tamil Nadu State. Objections against the award dated 21.10.2015 made pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 1.10.2008 could only have been filed at Hosur, Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted, even though the venue of arbitration proceedings was at Bangalore as agreed by mutual consent of the parties to the dispute. One way or the other, the Civil Court in District Sikar - State of Rajasthan - has no jurisdiction to entertain the objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against the award dated 21.10.2015, Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted.

(3.) Mr. Kamlendra Sihag sought time, submitting that the application under consideration is to be argued by Sr. Counsel Mr. G. Vikram who resides in Bangalore and who has been unable to be in Jaipur today.