Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx

57. The view of the Delhi High Court in Antrix Corporation Ltd., which followed judgments of the Bombay High Court, does not commend itself to us. First and foremost, it is incorrect to state that the example given by the Court in para 96 of BALCO reinforces the concurrent jurisdiction aspect of the said paragraph. As has been pointed out by us, the conclusion that the Delhi as well as the Mumbai or Kolkata Courts would have jurisdiction in the example given in the said paragraph is wholly incorrect, given the sentence, "This would be irrespective of the fact that the obligations to be performed under the contract were to be performed either at Mumbai or at Kolkata, and only arbitration is to take place in Delhi". The sentence which follows this is out of sync with this sentence, and the other paragraphs of the judgment. Thus, BALCO does not "unmistakably" hold that two Courts have concurrent jurisdiction, i.e., the seat Court and the Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises. What is missed by these High Court judgments is the subsequent paragraphs in BALCO, which clearly and unmistakably state that the choosing of a "seat" amounts to the choosing of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at which the "seat" is located. What is also missed are the judgments of this Court in Enercon (India) Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd.