1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Agrawal and Ms. Upasana Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Akhilesh Kalara, Sri Siddharth Singh, (through Video Conferencing) and Sri Atul Sahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Present appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as to the 'Act') against the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Misc. Case No.81 of 2011 arising from the arbitral award dated 27.12.2010, passed by the learned Arbitrator at Mumbai. Thereby he has rejected the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act.
3. Since the present appeal is proposed to be decided on short question, detailed narration of facts is not required. A Dealership Agreement and a lease deed were executed between the appellant and the respondent on 06.04.2005. At the same time and for the purpose of the aforesaid dealership, a Tripartite Agreement was also executed between the appellant, the respondent dealer and the State Bank of India. The Arbitration Agreement or Clause is contained in the Dealership Agreement dated 06.04.2005 being Clause 60. While existence of Arbitration Agreement is not disputed, the present controversy involves Clause 61. It fixes exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai over disputes arising under the agreement. In that context of that private law between the parties, it appears that the award came to be drawn by the sole arbitrator at Mumbai. It is dated 27.12.2010. Undisputedly, the present appellant filed an objection against the aforesaid award on 28.03.2019 before the learned District Judge, Shahjahanpur. That objection has been rejected on merits. Hence this appeal.
4. In view of the clear stipulation contained in clause 61 of the agreement between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bramhani River Pellet Ltd. vs. Kamachi Industries Ltd ((2017) 7 SCC 678), it does not survive for any consideration if the District Judge Shahjahanpur had any jurisdiction to entertain the objections.
5. Consequently, objections filed by the appellant could not have been entertained. Though it must be observed that the objections should have been rejected only on the account of lack of territorial jurisdiction and not upon consideration made on merits.
6. At the same time, remedy, if any, that may otherwise be available to the appellant is left intact. The appellant may approach the appropriate Court with respect to the award dated 27.12.2010 to whatever extent any remedy may survive.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Pr/-