Calcutta High Court
Mr. Isan Chandra Basu vs The Director & Anr on 26 April, 2010
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
AP No. 132 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
MR. ISAN CHANDRA BASU
Versus
THE DIRECTOR & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 26th April, 2010.
Appearance:
Mr. S. Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Banerjee, Adv.
The Court : The petitioner has ambled along to Court without
the faintest idea that a Court has to be approached on the basis of
territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Though pecuniary jurisdiction is
irrelevant in the context of the request under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the territorial jurisdiction of
2
the Delegate of the Chief Justice has to be invoked upon proper
averments being made.
Utterly irrelevant averments have been made to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Chief Justice of this Court. The agreement was
evidently entered into in Orissa. There is a forum selection clause
found at the sixteenth clause which provides for the Courts in Barbil
(Keonjhar) to be the exclusive forum. The forum selection clause may
not be relevant for the purpose of a request under Section 11, but it at
least gives an indication as to the matter.
The petitioner refers to the Clause 12.7 which provides that the
venue of the arbitration would be in Calcutta. The petitioner also refers
to Clause 12.3 that requires the Director, RMD, of Steel Authority of
India Limited to appoint an arbitrator.
Section 11(12)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
indicates the Chief Justice who may be approached with a request
under Section 11. As will appear from clause (b) that it is the principle
of Section 2(1)(e) which has been incorporated therein. Section 2(1)(e)
refers to a Court that would otherwise be competent to receive a suit
founded on the cause of action of the party approaching Court.
The situs of the office of the appointing authority and the venue
of the arbitration are utterly irrelevant for the purpose of invoking the
3
territorial jurisdiction of a Court for these are not matters on which a
cause of action can be founded within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of
the 1996 Act.
Since the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the
Chief Justice of this Court or His Delegate would have the authority to
receive a request under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, AP No.132 of 2010
is dismissed.
The petitioner will pay costs assessed at 100 GM.
The allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have
been admitted by the respondents.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.
A.R(C.R)