Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Clause 51:

"This Contract shall be governed by the Indian Laws for the time being in force. Any legal proceedings related to this contract shall be limited to Courts of laws under jurisdiction of Delhi Courts."

2. The brief facts are that certain disputes arose in relation to two contracts regarding civil construction, fire fighting and plumbing work in terms of which an alleged claim of Rs. 3,21,11,007/- of the petitioner is outstanding towards respondents 1 and 2. M/s. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. is a Pvt. Ltd. Company. According to the petitioner, the said company was earlier known as M/s. Bestech Engineers and Contractors (a Partnership firm) and the said Partnership Firm had originally executed a contract with the respondents. The said partnership firm was taken over by the petitioner as an ongoing concern on 1st October, 2001 which executed the work relating to the present contract.

6. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply to the petition mainly contending that (a) the petitioner has no locus standi to seek arbitration since there is no arbitration agreement between the petitioner i.e. M/s. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. and respondents No.1 and 2 as the two contracts were between the respondents and erstwhile partnership firm i.e. M/s. Bestech Engineers and Contractors and therefore, the petition is not maintainable; (b) the respondents have appointed the Arbitrator vide their letter dated 4th April, 2005, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable; (c) the respondents No.1 and 2 are separate legal entities and, therefore, separate notices for appointment of arbitrator should have been issued; and (d) the contracts were executed in Gurgaon and work was also performed in Gurgaon and merely because the contracts say that courts at Delhi will have jurisdiction, this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try this petition.

8. As regards the first contention raised by respondents No.1 and 2, the petitioner has relied upon the affidavit filed by Sh. S. Satija, Director of the petitioner company on 16 th May, 2006 wherein a statement has been made that the petitioner is a Pvt. Ltd. Company and at an earlier point of time was a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Bestech Engineers and Contractors wherein Mr. Dharminder Bhandari and Mr. Sunil Satija were the partners and the same had entered into an agreement with respondents No.1 and 2. M/s. Bestech Engineers and Contractors was taken over as an ongoing concern by the petitioner on 1st October, 2001.

12. On the other hand the submission of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 is that there is no privity of contract between the present petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2. The right to seek arbitration under the contract between the parties cannot be transferred without the consent of the parties and in fact after taking consent, a fresh arbitration agreement ought to have been executed.

13. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has nowhere pleaded that the firm M/s. Bestech Engineers and contractors has been dissolved or not. Mere allotment of shares to the partners Mr. Dharminder Bhandari and Mr. S. Satija is of no consequence as there is no written agreement between the petitioner and respondents. No document has been placed by the petitioner in support of the contention that the respondents have accepted the assignment or agreed to the assignment. There is no consensus ad idem between the petitioner and respondents for resolving their disputes by arbitration.