THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2397 OF 2014 Dated:01-08-2014
Between:
M/s. ATC Telecom Tower Corporation Private Limited (Formerly M/s. Essar Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd), having it’s A.P. Circle Office at Flat No.307, 3rd Floor, South Block, Archana Archade, St. Johns Road, Secunderabad – 500 025 rep., by its Authorised Signatory Anuradha Reddy T W/o. A.N.Reddy, Age 40 yrs, Regional Legal Manager ... PETITIONER AND Sri Putta Madhan Mohan Rao .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2397 OF 2014
ORDER:
The respondent filed O.S No. 1729 of 2012 in the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for recovery of certain amounts. After receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioner filed I.A No. 999 of 2013 under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), with a prayer to reject the suit as not maintainable. It was pleaded that in the licence agreement dated 20-01-2008, which is the subject matter of the suit, there exists an arbitration clause and in that view of the matter, the suit cannot be maintained. The respondent filed a counter opposing the I.A. An objection was raised to the effect that the I.A was not accompanied by the original of the arbitration agreement and Clause 7.9 of the licence agreement provides for adjudication of the disputes by a competent Court of jurisdiction at Hyderabad. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 20-01-2014. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
Section 8 of the Act, no doubt, provides that where the subject matter of a suit is governed by an arbitration clause, the parties must be required to pursue their remedies under the Act. However, there are certain exceptions to it. If the relief claimed in the suit involves interpretation and application of provisions of law, arbitration is not the proper remedy nor can it bar the suit. The language employed in Sections 5 or 8 of the Act is indicative, more of convenience of the parties, than of prohibitive of jurisdiction of a civil Court. The Supreme Court explained this phenomenon in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited
[1]
and others . Recently, this Court followed the same in J. Venkata Raja Rao v. M.D., Shriram City Union Finance
[2]
Ltd. .
Off late, the people are realising that the impression that arbitration is a quick, cheap and enduring remedy, is far from ground reality. Added to that, in the instant case, the relevant agreement itself contained a provision for adjudication of dispute in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hyderabad. Though there is an arbitration clause, it is to the effect that the same shall be subject to Mumbai jurisdiction. When so much of uncertainty exists, it is better that the parties pursue the remedy provided under the law of the land. When there are serious disputes between the parties and interpretation of clauses or agreements is involved, the suit would be proper remedy. The only difference would be while institution of a suit would commence the proceedings from the civil Court and the adjudication assumes finality with the disposal of appeal or further appeal, taking recourse to arbitration would add a further phase to the proceedings under the Act, in addition to the institution of the proceedings before the Court.
This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt. 01-08-2014 ks
[1] (2011) 5 SCC 532
[2] 2013 (5) ALD 570