1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

M/S Anandi Construction vs General Manager Central Organization

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019


Court No. - 5
Case :- ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 148 of 2018
Applicant :- M/S Anandi Construction
Opposite Party :- General Manager Central Organization For Railway Northern Central
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rajnish Kumar Rai,Navaneet Chandra Tripathi
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ashotosh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent.
The applicant by the instant application filed under Section 11(4)/11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 27 of the agreement.
The opposite party has filed objection contending that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. Admitted facts between the parties is that the Railways invited tender for Repair, Renovation and other miscellaneous works in the office of the Chief Project Director / Railway Electrification / Chennai Egmore, RE Camp Office over First Floor of Construction Rest House and RE Subordinate Rest House at Chennai Egmore in Chennai Division of Southern Railway. The applicant submitted tender in Chennai, which was accepted and an agreement between the parties was signed at Chennai Egmore. The contract was to be executed in Chennai. The contract was terminated in Chennai as dispute having arisen between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the instant application was instituted before this Court for the reason that the applicant is resident of Agra.
Learned counsel for the opposite party would submit that the arbitration agreement does not provide for the seat of arbitration and no part of cause of action would fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The entire cause of action is within the jurisdiction of the Court at Chennai. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs.
Prasad Trading Company : 1991 LawSuit (SC) 350, and Magnum Builders and Developers and Chawala Construction (JV) through its Proprietor Manoj Srivastava Son of Late L N Srivastava vs. Ircon International Limited through its General Manager, Merid Accommodation Project and Ircon International Limited through General Manager, Jhansi Region : 2008 LawSuit (All) 632.
In my considered opinion, this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11 of the Act. It is not the case of the applicant that the Courts at Uttar Pradesh, as well as, Chennai, Tamilnadu have simultaneous jurisdiction. No part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
I do not find any merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
However, dismissal of the application shall not preclude the applicant from approaching the Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 SK Srivastava
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

M/S Anandi Construction vs General Manager Central Organization


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 April, 2019
  • Ashok Kumar
  • Railway
  • Ashutosh Pandey