- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.
(2.) The respondent made an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of District Judge, Ganganagar. The appellant contended that in view of clause 11(ii) of the arbitration agreement in question, the Civil Court at Fazilka is the only Court entitled to entertain the application, and that Ganganagar Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The question relating to jurisdiction was taken up as a preliminary issue and decided in favour of the respondent, by an order, which was confirmed by the High Court. This decision is under challenge before us.
(3.) The provisions of clause 11(ii) relied upon by the appellant, are in the following terms:- "11(ii)- Subject to the provisions of Arbitration hereafter detailed any legal proceedings arising out of or in connection with or rateable to this agreement or the subdealership in the terms hereof shall be filed before the Court of competent, Civil Jurisdiction at Fazilka and the jurisdiction of the other Courts to entertain and decide such proceedings is hereby expressly excluded." The learned counsel has contended that in view of the clear and unambiguous language in clause 11(ii) there is no scope for upholding the jurisdiction of the Ganganagar Court to decide the case. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the jurisdiction of the other Courts is saved by the expression "subject to the provisions of arbitration hereafter detailed" in the said subclause. It is stated that an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act cannot be treated to be a legal proceeding before the Civil Court, as the purpose of the application is to secure the remedy by arbitration.;