SULTAN SINGH - (1.) ORDER:
(2.) THE petitioner Sushil Ansal sole proprietor of the business 'Ansal Construction Co.' entered into contract with the Union of India at Lucknow relating to provision of flooring etc. in certain buildings at Kanpur. Disputes arose between the parties and Brig. V. N- Aggarwal was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the various disputes between the parties. He made his award 01 7th March, 1979. THE petitioner filed the petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for filing for the award and proceedings in Court by the arbitrator and for making the same a rule of the Court. THE jurisdiction of this Court is claimed on the basis that the arbitrator was appointed and he made the award at Delhi and that Union of India has its headquarters at Delhi. THE arbitrator filed the award and the proceedings in this Court. Notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties but no objection was filed by any of the parties against the award. THE Union of India, however, filed an application (I. A. No. 2304 of 1979) under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 31 of the Arbitration Act alleging that that contract in question was entered into at Lucknow, the construction work under the contract was to be done at Kanpur, the subject matter of reference was at Kanpur the cause of action arose at Kanpur. THE respondent alleges that the award ought to have been filed in the Court of the Civil Judge at Kanpur and that this Court has no jurisdiction. THE petitioner admits that the contract was entered into at Lucknow, that the construction work was to be done at Kanpur, that the subject-matter of the reference was also at Kanpur. THE petitioner, however, contends that S. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in its entirety to these proceedings, that arbitrator was appointed at Delhi and he made his award at Delhi, that Union of India has its headquarters at Delhi and, therefore, this court has jurisdiction. Under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Arbitration Act, but subject to other provisions of the Arbitration Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 31 of the Arbitration Act provides that an award may be filed in any court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates. According to Section 2 (c) of the Arbitration Act 'court' for purposes of the Act means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the reference, if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. Thus one has to ascertain what are the questions forming the subject matter of the reference to arbitration which resulted in the award. Suppose those questions arise in a suit then find out which would be the competent court to decide such suit. THE court competent to decide such questions in the suit would be the court having jurisdiction to decide the present petition under the Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of the Court. THE questions forming subject matter of the reference to arbitration are the various questions which were raised before the arbitrator. All such questions and claims before arbitrator related to compensation, refund of excess recovery, payment for work done, cost of arbitration proceedings, and amount of final bill, for the contract performed at Kanpur. All these questions thus arose at Kanpur only as the work under the contract was done at Kanpur. THE contract in question was accepted at Lucknow and the place of performance of the work was at Kanpur. If the suit is to be filed on the basis of these questions, it cannot be filed under Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the court at Delhi. THE matters, as alleged by the petitioner, relating to appointment of arbitrator at New Delhi, making of award by him at New Delhi and the Union of India having its headquarters at New Delhi are not the questions forming the subject matter of reference and therefore do not confer jurisdiction upon this court. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in its entirety and, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as under; "20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises; Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." THE contract in question relates to the provision of flooring in certain buildings at Kanpur. THE construction of the work under the contract is not the business of the Union of India. This is only an executive function to be performed by the officers. THE Union of India no doubt has its office at Delhi but the court does not exercise its jurisdiction against the Union of India simply because it has its office at Delhi. THE Union of India is not a natural person. THE expression 'voluntarily resides' in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not refer to legal entity but to natural persons. Similarly, the expression 'carries on business or personally works for gain 'does not refer to functions carried on by the Union of India in discharge of its executive powers as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Binani Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, ILR (1975) 2 Delhi 196. THE present case thus is not covered either under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE case is also not covered under clause (c) of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No part of the cause of action arose at Delhi and, therefore, this Court has no Jurisdiction, THE learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740 wherein it has been observed that the Code of Civil Procedure in its entirety applies to proceedings under the Arbitration Act and that the expression "corporation" Used in Code of Civil Procedure means a legal person and includes a company registered under the Companies Act Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of the Code of Civil procedure as observed above do not apply to the present case. THE Union of India is not a 'Corporation* within the meaning of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This judgment is, therefore, of no help to the petitioner. Another judgment cited by the petitioner is Union of India v. Ladu Lal Jain, AIR 1963 SC 1681. This case related to a suit filed against railways for non-delivery of goods and has been held to be not applicable by the Division Bench in Binani Bros. (P.) Ltd. (Supra). THE Union of India in the instant case cannot be said to be carrying on business or residing at Delhi. This judgment is also, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner. THE petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act be therefore returned to the petitioner for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. THE arbitrator has filed the original award and also the arbitration proceedings which may be returned to the arbitrator. THEre will be no order as to costs.;