Calcutta High Court
Mrs. Gopa Das & Ors vs Vasan Health Care Pvt. Ltd on 27 June, 2018
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
ORDER
EC No. 201 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
MRS. GOPA DAS & ORS.
Versus
VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 27th June 2018.
Appearance:
Mr. Srenik Singhvi, Advocate ...for the petitioner.
This is an application under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of an order passed by the arbitrator under Section 18(1) of the Act.
None of the parties are within the jurisdiction of this Court. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The arbitration proceeding appears to have been held at Kolkata. It is on that basis that this application has been filed. The application proceeds on the basis that since the seat of arbitration is within the jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta, this order is enforceable before this Court under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as this Court would be the competent court under Section 2(1)(e) of the said Act. Mr. Srenik Singhvi has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indus Mobile Distribution 2 Private Limited vs. Datawind Innovations Private Limited & Others reported at (2017) 7 Supreme Court Cases 678 and a decision of a coordinate Bench in Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. vs. Debdas Routh & Anr. reported at 2017 SCC Online Cal 16379 in support of his contention that this Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain this application.
In Indus Mobile (supra), the arbitration agreement provides the seat of arbitration at Mumbai and the jurisdiction was exclusively vested in Mumbai courts. The dispute resolution mechanism set out in paragraph 2 of the judgment clearly shows the said agreement between the parties. In the instant case, there is no such agreement between the parties. Moreover, the subject matter of the dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. The seat of arbitration in this case does not confer any jurisdiction on this Court as, unlike in the judgment in Indus Mobile (supra), there is no such clause similar to the dispute resolution clause referred to in the said judgment.
The conclusion of the judgment in Hinduja Leyland (supra) has to be read and understood on the basis of what is recorded in paragraph 2 of the said judgment, which reads:-
"2. It is now settled law that the venue of the arbitration specified in the arbitration agreement means the "seat"
of arbitration. "Seat" is associated with English law. If a "Venue" is mentioned in addition to the "seat" then 3 it refers to a place for holding the arbitration, other than the venue. (See Shashour Sharma's case reported in (2009) 2 Lloyd's Report 376)."
As indicated above, in the instant case, neither the seat nor the venue of the arbitration is mentioned in the arbitration clause. If the argument of Mr. Singhvi is to be accepted, then for any arbitration held in Delhi in respect of the parties who are residing in Calcutta and Mumbai and the subject matter of the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of either of the courts, the parties to such arbitration would be required to file applications before the Delhi courts for enforcement of orders that may be passed in such proceedings. Unless the venue and/or seat of the arbitration as well as jurisdiction of the Court is clearly mentioned in the arbitration agreement, it cannot be construed that designation of seat of arbitration is akin to exclusive jurisdiction clause as to the courts exercising supervisory powers over the arbitration.
Under such circumstances, this application fails on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. The merits of the matter have not been gone into.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) S. Kumar