- (1.) This civil revision is directed against the order dated 1.6.2010, passed by the District Judge, Etah rejecting the application filed by applicant, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') for want of jurisdiction.
(2.) Undisputed facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under: Applicant was appointed as dealer to run a retail outlet of the Respondents-Corporation at Maharara, district Etah. Subsequently, with the consent and approval of the Respondents-Corporation, the said retail outlet was commissioned at village Jalesar against the same dealership agreement dated 9.10.1990 which was executed between the parties in respect of village Maharara. In 2001, the Respondents-Corporation proposed to renovate the retail outlet and uplift the same at its own costs to the level of 'A Site' category and for the purpose desired the applicant's land at Jalesar where retail outlet was running to be leased out in its favour. On 7.9.2001, the land was leased out to the Respondents -Corporation under lease agreement. On 23.8.2006, the officers of the Corporation carried inspection of the retail outlet of the applicant and collected sample of motor spirit. The said sample was tested on 31.8.2006. Vide order dated 22.9.2006 the sale and supply of the retail outlet of the applicant was placed under suspension and a show cause notice was issued for termination of the dealership. Vide order dated 23.1.2007, the dealership agreement of the applicant was terminated which was challenged before the Delhi High Court by means of Writ Petition No. 914 of 2007. The said writ petition was lateron withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to initiate proceedings before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Etah. An objection was filed on behalf of Respondents-Corporation raising the question of jurisdiction of District Judge, Etah to entertain the proceedings in view of Clause 67 of the dealership agreement dated 19.10.1990 which provided that Court in the city of New Delhi shall have jurisdiction to entertain suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any claim or dispute arising under the agreement. Vide impugned order, the District Judge dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction in view of Clause 67 of the agreement.
(3.) It has been urged by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the learned District Judge has erred in law in rejecting the application as agreement excluding the jurisdiction is void in view of Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act being against public policy. It has further been urged that since a part of the cause of action arose in district Etah as such the application was maintainable before the civil court at Etah and the application has wrongly and illegally been rejected.;