Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Tvs Motors Company Ltd vs M/S Bagaria Motors on 9 October, 2018
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 15490/2016
Tvs Motors Company Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Bagaria Motors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Counsel with Mr. MS Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Sihag HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 09/10/2018 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. & Anr. Versus Central Bureau of (2 of 4) [CW-15490/2016] 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 thereagainst on the ground that six months since the passing of this Court's interim order have already lapsed.
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. & Anr. Versus 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 (3 of 4) [CW-15490/2016] 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.
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.
Heard. Considered.
On the one hand the respondent-objector had required the court below by its application to hear the objections to the award dated 21.10.2015 despite the confirmed stay order dated 13.12.2017 passed by this Court on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) and, on the other hand when an application for extension of the order comes before this Court, time is sought. This cannot be countenanced for if an adjournment, as sought, for a specious reason, were to be granted, the petitioner-applicant would be irretrievably prejudiced with the court below, whose territorial jurisdiction in issue has earlier prima-facie been found to be wanting, proceeding and deciding finally in the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
(4 of 4) [CW-15490/2016] In the instant case the legal question is with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Civil court in District Sikar to hear the objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against the award dated 21.10.2015 passed at Bangalore - a venue mutually agreed
- where the arbitration clause between the parties even otherwise provided for exclusive jurisdiction of courts at Hosur in State of Tamil Nadu in the event of disputes between the parties to the underlying agreement dated 1.10.2008, I am of the considered view that on count of the prima-facie case made out for the petitioner, consequences to its benefit on the issue of balance of convenience and irreparable loss follow as in the event the court below finally decides the respondent's objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against the award dated 21.10.2015, this petition would be rendered infructuous. The petitioner-applicant is thus entitled to a clarification that further proceedings before the court below on objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 by the respondent-objector against the award dated 21.10.2015 shall remain further stayed pursuant to the court's order dated 13.12.2017 till otherwise directed.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(ALOK SHARMA),J DK Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)