Jharkhand High Court
Jagraj Infrastructure Private Limited vs Ashoka Buildcon Limited on 14 July, 2022
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Arbitration Application No. 25 of 2019
Jagraj Infrastructure Private Limited, a company registered under the
Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Mohalla Purani
Bijali Colony, Untta Station, P.O. & P.S. District Jehanabad - 804417
(Bihar), being represented through one of its Directors, Shri Ashwini
Kumar aged about 50 years, son of Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh,
resident of Mohalla Purani Bijali Colony, Untta Station, P.O. & P.S.
& District Jehanabad - 804417 (bihar).
... ...Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
1. Ashoka Buildcon Limited, a company registered under the Companies
Act 1956, having its registered office at S. No. 861, Ashoka House,
Ashoka Marg, Ashoka Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Vadala, District Nashik -
422011 (Maharashtra), being represented through its Director, Rajan
Burad, son of not known, resident of S. No. 861, Ashoka House,
Ashoka Marg, Ashoka Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Vadala, District Nashik -
422011 (Maharashtra).
2. Niraj Kumar, son of not known, Project In-charge, Ashoka Buildcon
Limited, having its site office at NH-32, NHAI Complex, Kandra,
P.O. Bhitia, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad -828109 (Jhakrhand).
3. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), being represented
through the Project Director, NH-32, NHAI Complex, Kandra, P.O.
Bhitia, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad - 828109 (Jharkhand).
...... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Deomani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate
---------------------------
08/Dated 14th July, 2022 This application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a direction for 2 appointment of sole Arbitrator in view of the contract dated 24.02.2018 appended as Annexure-1 to the paper-book which contains an arbitration clause as under Clause 23(a).
Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent has seriously objected the maintainability of the instant application on the ground that the arbitration clause as contained under Clause 23(a) speaks about the venue to be at Nashik, Maharashtra, as such, according to him, the jurisdiction of the High Court under which the Nashik, Maharashtra falls, is only having jurisdiction, therefore, the instant application is not maintainable.
Upon this, Mr. Pradeep Kr. Deomani, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant application with a liberty to approach before the Court having jurisdiction to invoke the provision of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
No objection has been made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent.
In view thereof, the instant application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Court having jurisdiction, as per the contract.
Accordingly, the instant arbitration application stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh