ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) Parties before me entered into a contract for supply of goods at Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner before me is carrying on business at Calcutta whereas the respondent is situated at Andhra Pradesh Clauses 16 and 17 of the contract stipulate as follows: 16. That for the purpose of jurisdiction of Court, this contract shall be deemed to have been entered into at Sirpur-Kagaznagar, South Central Railway, District Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh. 17. That in case of any dispute the decision of the General Manager of our Mills shall be final and binding on you.
(2.) The petitioners allege that they were not paid their dues far that they were compelled to file a Civil Suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The said suit has, however, been stayed at the instance of the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The present application has been made by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, praying for appointment of Arbitrator. Clause 17 did not stipulate reference to arbitration. However, the parties understood the said clause as such. The respondent has filed the affidavitin opposition contending that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, rather lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present application.
(3.) Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned Counsel appearing in support of this application, contends as follows : I) Clause 16 of the contract does not put any ouster or fetter on this Court from entertaining the present application in absence of specific words i.e. 'exclusive only alone etc. II) The plea of territorial jurisdiction should have been taken at the earliest opportunity. The respondent did not take such plea before the City Civil Court while making the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1940 and as such, they are debarred from taking this plea at this belated stage. III) Part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction in view of the fact that the goods were supplied from Calcutta being the petitioners' place of business and the money was also payable at Calcutta. Hence, this Court is otherwise competent to entertain this application.;