KAMRAJ JENA Vs. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Devi, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, her client is aggrieved by judgment dtd. 28/11/2019 made by District Judge, Malkangiri, dismissing her client's petition under sec. 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on ground of jurisdiction. On query from Court that challenge stood dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and therefore, her client was not barred from taking the challenge to the Court, found by impugned judgment, to have jurisdiction, she submits that the challenge by then was barred by time. Under provision in rule 10 of order VII in Code of Civil Procedure, said Court should have returned the challenge to be presented in the Court, found to have jurisdiction.

(2.) She submits further, the Court below had and has jurisdiction. Cause of action arose in Odisha. She demonstrates from the hypothecation agreement dtd. 1/11/2005, borrower and her client (guarantor) are residents of Odisha. Impugned judgment was passed ex parte against the financier. As such, there was no contention before the Court below for enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement. Provisions in sec. 34 and 2(1)(e) of the Act of 1996, in the facts, conferred jurisdiction on the Court below.

(3.) Issue notice along with this order on respondents. Appellant will put in requisites.