- (1.) THIS revisional application, at the instance of the petitioners, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. and. other principal officers namely, the Chief Project Manager, Senior Manager and the Manager of the said Corporation, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Jalpaiguri in O.C. Suit No.27 of 1988 on 6th of August, 1990. The facts leading to the revisional application may briefly be stated below:-
(2.) THE petitioner, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (Shortly to be called "Corporation" hereafter) entered into a contract with the opposite party No.1 at Malda, West Bengal for carrying out certain electrification jobs. Some of the works are to be executed at Malda and some at Salakati District Kokrajhor, Assam. THE contract between the parties was reduced to a written agreement. From the allegations and counterallegations as can be discerned from records, the controversy appears as follows :- THE contractor, the opposite party No.1, could not complete the work of the construction within scheduled time, extension of time was prayed for by him for the execution of the works of the contract. THE time was extended from time to time only on condition that there would be no demand for escalation of price or any increment in Labour Wages. Some defects were detected by the Corporation in the work and they demanded rectification of the same. THE opposite party completed the work on 27-11-86 but left out the rectification work. He did not take up the work of rectification in spite of repeated reminders, and instead demanded release of security money and payment of bill. At last, he filed a suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge Jalpaiguri on 6th of April, 1988 for filing arbitration agreement in Court in terms of S.20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. THE suit was registered as O.C. (Arbitration) Suit No.27 of 1988. THE reliefs claimed in the suit, inter alia, are that the Corporation should be directed to show cause as to why the agreement for arbitration should not be filed in the Court and that the Court should on examination of the arbitration agreement pass appropriate orders in the suit. THE Corporation entered appearance in the suit and raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. THE Court on such objection formulated issue No.2 relating to jurisdiction. The learned Assistant District Judge tin hearing the submission and arguments of the contesting parties has come to the finding that this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly decided the issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party No.1.
(3.) MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the revisionist has contended that 3 of the work sites were at Salakati, Assam and one at Malda and the endeavour of the opposite party to file this suit in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Jalpaiguri under S.20(1) of the Arbitration Act should be taken as an attempt to bring the suit at a Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain it. It has further been urged by him that the learned Assistant District Judge not only committed an error in the exercise of his jurisdiction but also misguided himself on the question of fact as well as on law.;