The Allahabad High Court, in an appeal filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction and even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Commercial Court. However, the same was opposed by the respondent contested the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the dispute should be addressed in the Courts of New Delhi, as per the contractual agreement.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the law on the aspect is well settled wherein though the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on any Court, however, if more than one Courts has jurisdiction pertaining to the subject matter of the dispute, the jurisdiction of the other Courts except one can be excluded.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the law on the aspect is well settled wherein though the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on any Court, however, if more than one Courts has jurisdiction pertaining to the subject matter of the dispute, the jurisdiction of the other Courts except one can be excluded.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the tender documents and acceptance of tender were unequivocally issued from New Delhi and a clause in the letter of the appendices stated that the Courts of the place where these documents were issued would exclusively have jurisdiction over disputes arising from or related to the order.
Further, the court noted that the inclusion of the phrase 'shall alone' in the clause indicated the parties' intention to exclude the jurisdiction of any other Courts except for the location where the tender documents and acceptance were issued, which in this instance was New Delhi and further relied on the decision in the case of Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited Vs. Datawind Innovations Private Limited and others, wherein it was held that parties are entitled to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts when more than one court has jurisdiction over a matter.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Budhwar
Case No.: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 2 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Vivek Kumar Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Hari Om Ojha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
