- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") challenging the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, City Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the court below") in Arbitration Application No.24/2012, whereby the court below has returned the application of the appellant-applicant filed under Section 9 of the said Act, for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellant had filed an application under Section 9 of the said Act seeking various interim measures in respect of the agreement dated 30.5.11 before the court below for the period till the arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties. In the said application, the respondents had filed an application under Section 27 of the CPC read with Section 2(e) of the said Act, contending interalia that as per the terms of the contract, the parties had agreed to resolve the dispute subject to Mumbai jurisdiction only and therefore the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the applicant. The court below allowed the said application of the respondents and returned the application of the appellant for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction as per the impugned order.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.C. Goyal for the appellant that the court below had misinterpreted the provisions contained in the CPC as well as the terms of the agreement for holding that it had no jurisdiction and the court at Mumbai only had the jurisdiction. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company, 1991 4 SCC 270, Mr. Goyal the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present case would fall within the later part of the explanation to Section 20 of the CPC, which pertains to the Court within whose jurisdiction the subordinate office of the respondents was situated and where the cause of action had arisen. According to him, no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Court and the cause of action had arisen only within the jurisdiction of Jaipur court, where the subordinate office of the respondents was situated. He also submitted that the entire work was to be executed at Jaipur, the bills were to be submitted by the appellant to the site office of the respondents at Jaipur and the appellant also had to receive the payment from the respondents at Jaipur, and therefore the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Jaipur court only. According to him, the parties by agreement could not have conferred the jurisdiction on the Court at Mumbai, where no cause of action had arisen.;