Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: R.F.Nariman in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd vs Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 19 April, 2017Matching Fragments
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals raise an interesting question as to whether, when the seat of arbitration is Mumbai, an exclusive jurisdiction clause stating that the courts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement would oust all other courts including the High Court of Delhi, whose judgment is appealed against.
3. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are that Respondent No.1 is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and distribution of Mobile Phones, Tablets and their accessories. Respondent No.1 has its registered office at Amritsar, Punjab. Respondent No.1 was supplying goods to the appellant at Chennai from New Delhi. The appellant approached Respondent No.1 and expressed an earnest desire to do business with Respondent No.1 as its Retail Chain Partner. This being the case, an agreement dated 25.10.2014 was entered into between the parties. Clauses 18 and 19 are relevant for our purpose, and are set out hereinbelow:
…………………………………..J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE ) …….…………………………… J.
(R.F. NARIMAN) New Delhi;
April 19, 2017.