Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shivhar Road Lines (Registered ... vs M/S Engineers India Ltd Thr. on 25 January, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.C. No. 08/2015
(M/s Shivhare Road Lines Vs. M/s Engineers India Ltd. and others)
Gwalior, 25/01/2018
Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents.
On 22/01/2018, taking into consideration the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents as to maintainability of present application under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following order was passed:-
"Vide present application under Sub-Section 6 of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute arising from the contract No.A043/T- 045/10-11/MCJ/13/DLOA for Material Handling Services For Onshore Gas Terminal at Mallavaram, Andhra Pradesh for Deen Dayal Field Development Project of M/s Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited.
At an outset objection is raised on behalf of the respondents as to maintainability of present application on the anvil of Clause 24.4 which envisages "the contract shall be construed and governed by Indian Law and shall be subjected to exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at the Ahemadabad, Gujarat" and the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited Vs. Datawind Innovations Private Limited [2017 (7) SCC 678], wherein it is held:-2
"It is well settled that where more than one court has jurisdiction, it is open for the parties to exclude all other courts. For an exhaustive analysis of the case law, See Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. This was followed in a recent judgment in B.E.Simoese Von Staraburg Niedenthal Vs.Chhattisgarh Investment Ltd. Having regard to the above, it is clear that Mumbai courts alone have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts in the country, as the juridical seat of arbitration is at Mumbai. This being the case, the impugned judgment is set aside. The injunction confirmed by the impugned judgment will continue for a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, so that the respondents may take necessary steps under Section 9 in the Mumbai Court. The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two days time and put-forth the submission.
Prayer allowed.
List the matter on 25.01.2018." When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application with a liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court as stipulated in Clause 24.4 of the agreement or in the alternative to settle the dispute with the respondents in furtherance to minutes of meeting dated 12/05/2014.
Since the present application is for appointment of an arbitrator and the same is being withdrawn, this 3 Court refrains from making any observation in respect of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant to invoke the proposal as is allegedly floated vide minutes of meeting dated 12/05/2014.
In view of above, application stands dismissed as withdrawn.
(Sanjay Yadav) Judge shubh* SHUBHANKAR Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, MISHRA 2.5.4.20=e1f45241b0d8e47d03567942a7e835e2631b7c3ff74 7e97afd6840fdaafb8d3a, cn=SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2018.01.30 18:28:51 +05'30'