Delhi High Court - Orders
Inland Waterways Authority Of India vs Reach Dredging Ltd. (Rdl) And Gayatri ... on 9 December, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~30 to 32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 487/2022
INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
..... Petitioner
versus
REACH DREDGING LTD. (RDL) AND GAYATRI
PROJECTS (P) LTD. (JV) ..... Respondent
31
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 488/2022
INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
..... Petitioner
versus
REACH DREDGING LTD. AND M/S RASHMI METALIKS
LTD. AND M/S SS ELECTROGRIP PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
(JV) ..... Respondent
32
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2022
INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
..... Petitioner
versus
REACH DREDGING LTD. AND GAYATRI PROJECTS (P)
LTD. (JV) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naveen Chawla, Adv. for
petitioner.
Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty and
Ms. Sonia Dube, Advs. for
respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 09.12.2022 I.A. 20824/2022 (exemption) in O.M.P. (COMM) 487/2022, I.A. 20840/2022 (exemption) in O.M.P. (COMM) 488/2022 and I.A. 20846/2022 (exemption) in O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2022 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications shall stand disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 487/2022, I.A. 20823/2022 (Stay), I.A. 20825/2022 (Delay of 3 days in refiling petition), O.M.P. (COMM) Signature Not Verified 488/2022, I.A. 20839/2022(Stay), I.A. 20841/2022(Delay of 3 days Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:12.12.2022 17:06:14 in refiling petition) and O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2022, I.A. 20845/2022(stay), I.A. 20847/2022 (Delay of 3 days in refiling petition)
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the institution of the present petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [the 1996 Act] with learned counsel for the respondent asserting that as per Clause 47.1.1 of the Contract, and which comprises the arbitration clause, two competing venues were indicated as being the venue for arbitration, namely, Noida/ Delhi. According to learned counsel, no part of the cause of action as may be generally understood arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is pointed out that the work of dredging was carried out in Orissa and that the respondent is situate in the State of West Bengal. In view of the aforesaid, it was his submission that the petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act had been wrongly instituted before this Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that since all proceedings relating to arbitration were conducted in New Delhi, the present Court would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain these petitions under Section 34.
3. The question which, consequently, arises is whether Delhi was understood to be merely the ―venue‖ for arbitration as opposed to being the ―seat‖.
4. In order to enable learned counsels to address further submissions on this question, let these petitions be called again on 09.01.2023.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DECEMBER 9, 2022 SU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:12.12.2022 17:06:14