Punjab-Haryana High Court
Schindler India Private Limited vs M/S Srk Developers & Promoters on 15 November, 2013
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
ARB-165-2013
Date of decision:-15.11.2013
Schindler India Private Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s SRK Developers & Promoters
...Respondent
ARB-166-2013
Schindler India Private Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s South Eastern Carrier Pvt. Ltd.
...Respondent
ARB-167-2013
Schindler India Private Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
Swami Devi Dayal Group of Professional Institution
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
Present: Mr. K.S. Rakkar, Advocate,
for Mr. Ajay Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J. (ORAL)
The present petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arise out of a dispute inter se the parties whereby the petitioner was approached by the respondents for supplying and installation of elevators at their buildings located at Amritsar, Gurgaon and village Gopalpur, Tehsil Barwala District Panchkula respectively. The offers were made vide letters dated 27.05.2009, 10.01.2007 and 05.02.2009 respectively which are stated to have been accepted by the respondents. The offer letters contain arbitration clause Nos. 18 and 20 respectively. Sharma Amodh 2013.11.19 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh ARB-165-2013 2 ARB-166-2013 ARB-167-2013 It is the case of the petitioner that part considerations of ` 3,06,522/-, ` 2,05,969/- and ` 3,21,293/- respectively still remain to be paid alongwith interest.
A perusal of the arbitration clauses shows that the seat of arbitration has to be at Mumbai and jurisdiction for the purposes of the Act has also been agreed to be at Mumbai. In paras 33 and 31 of the petitions, a reference has been made to these clauses while stating that the letters of offer were prepared at Delhi and the contracts were processed from the Delhi office. The material is stated to have been lifted from the Delhi office and, thus, it is alleged that part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Thereafter, it is stated that the jurisdiction to try the present petitions is of this Court.
I fail to appreciate the plea as while exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on the Mumbai Courts, which is not a Court without jurisdiction and the averments in the petitions are that necessary acts have been done at Delhi yet after observing so the petitions have been filed in this Court.
The petitions are, thus, liable to be dismissed with liberty to file the petitions before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE 15.11.2013 Amodh Sharma Amodh 2013.11.19 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh