Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Schindler India Private Ltd vs M/S.Leo Primecomp Pvt. Ltd on 8 January, 2016

Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul

        

 
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated : 08.01.2016

Coram :

The Hon'ble Mr.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice

O.P.No.175 of 2015


Schindler India Private Ltd.,
Rep. by Deputy General Manager -
 Field Operations, Mr.K.Devaraj.		.. Petitioner

-vs-


1.M/s.Leo Primecomp Pvt. Ltd.,
   No.61 & 62 Lakshmanan Nagar,
   Kandanchavadi, Chennai.

2.Mr.Aiyulureddiar Vasudevan,
   Director.

3.Mr.Aiyulureddiar Balakumar
   Director.				.. Respondents


	Petition filed under Order XIV Rule VII of O.S. Rules, read with Section 11 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator for the settlement of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent.

	For Petitioner	:  Mr.SP.Chokalingam

	For Respondent	:  Notice served.

* * * * *



O R D E R

In terms of the contract inter se the parties, the Courts in Mumbai alone have jurisdiction and the venue of arbitration is also at Mumbai.

2.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court has been approached as the work has been executed within the jurisdiction of this Court and the respondents are based in Chennai.

3.It is trite to say that by consent, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court which is totally devoid of jurisdiction, but can be conferred exclusively on any Court where even a small part of cause of action has arisen (vide A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P.Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239). In the present case, it is not disputed that some part of cause of action has arisen at Mumbai.

4.The matter could have been resolved if the respondents had entered appearance, but despite service none has chosen to appear for the respondents.

5.In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no option but to dismiss the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file the petition before the competent Court at Mumbai.

6.Original Petition, thus, stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No costs.

(S.K.K., CJ.) 08.01.2016 sra The Hon'ble Chief Justice (sra) O.P.No.175 of 2015 08.01.2016