ROYALEX FASHIONS INDIA Vs. RANJAN APPARELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 336 of 2000 of the Court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has filed this Civil Revision challenging to the order passed on 18.4.2001. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to here as per their status in the said Arbitration Misc. Case. Impugned order is a composite order passed by learned District Judge in rejecting the application filed by the Opp. Party No. 1 under Order 14, Rule 2(2)(b) read with Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') and allowing the application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, read with Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code to add the Opp. Party No. 2.

(2.) IT is the admitted position on record that on the basis of a contract entered into between the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 1 that the petitioner worked as a consignee agent for marketing of the goods of the Opp. Party No. 1 Company. The said Opp. Party unilaterally terminated the agreement and appointed the Opp. Party No. 2 as its consignee agent. With that allegation, petitioner instituted application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act vide Arbitration Misc. Case No. 336 of 2000. Petitioner filed application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code to implead the Opp. Party No. 2. Opp. Party No. 1 filed application under Order 14, Rule 2 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code to take up the issue of non -maintainability of the Arbitration Misc. Case at Bhubaneswar on the ground of want of jurisdiction in view of clear stipulation in the agreement between the parties concerning jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka.

(3.) OPP . Party No. 1 revision petitioner argued that ratio in the case of Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740 provides the guideline that when two Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the dispute then exclusion of the jurisdiction of one Court by agreement of the parties is not in contravention of Section 28 of the Contract Act and therefore such agreement cannot be rendered invalid. It also further argued that in a distinguishable fact the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Patel Roadways Limited (supra) found the Court at Bombay to have no jurisdiction and that precedent is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it also argued that view of the Apex Court in Hakam Singh (supra) was not only accepted as a settled principle in the above noted case of M/s. Patel Roadways Limited (supra) but also various other cases in the Apex Court including the cases of Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. and Anr., AIR 1995 SC 1766 and Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd., v. Rama Mishra, AIR 2002 SC 2402. In these reported decisions the Apex Court reiterated to confer the jurisdiction on the Court as stipulated in the agreement between the parties. It also argued that such settled view of the Apex Court has been followed by this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Ray v. Tata Finance Ltd., AIR 2002 Orissa 29. Accordingly, Opp. Party No. 1 (Revision Petitioner) argued to set aside the order of the District Judge in rejecting its application under Order 14, Rule 2 and Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code. There has been no argument and it could not have been relating to the order in respect of amendment of the application and addition of Opp. Party No. 2 as a party to the proceeding.