Bela M.Trivedi, J. - (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. 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.
(2.) 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. However, the learned senior counsel Mr. Ashok Mehta for the respondents submitted that apart from the fact that the parties had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of Mumbai only, the head office of the respondents was situated at Mumbai and the part cause of action had also arisen at Mumbai, inasmuch as all the invoices were to be submitted at the head office at Mumbai and payments were also to be released from the Mumbai Office. He also submitted that there was no subordinate office at Jaipur and only temporary site office was opened at Jaipur, where work was to be executed by the appellant. The learned senior counsel has Mr. Mehta has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of A.V.M. Sales Corporation Vs. Anuradha Chemicals Private Limited : (2012) 2 SCC 315 to submit that cause of action comprises a bundle of facts which are relevant for the determination of lis between the parties. He also submitted that the agreement to limit jurisdiction at one place only, out of the other courts otherwise having jurisdiction, would be valid. He has also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Baradia & Ors. : (2005) 10 SCC 704 and in case of Mr. Angile Insulations Vs. M/s. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. & Anr. : JT 1995 (5) S.C. 179, to buttress his submissions.
(3.) IN the instant case it appears that the appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 are the Companies incorporated under the Companies Act. The appellant -company has its registered office at New Delhi and is engaged in the business of civil construction, whereas the respondent No. 1 has its head office at Mumbai and is engaged in the construction work for metro rail projects. It further appears that the respondent No. 1 had entrusted construction work of depot -cum -workshop at Mansarovar on east -west corridor for Stage -I of Jaipur Metro and thereafter had placed various work orders upon the appellant from time to time. Out of the various work orders, the work order dated 2.6.11 to be governed by the agreement was issued for the construction of permanent structure alongwith earth work at Metro Depot at Mansarovar, Jaipur, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. Subsequently some disputes had arisen between the parties as regards the payments to be made to the appellant. According to the appellant though the work was successfully carried out by it, the respondent No. 1 was not making the payments as per the terms of the contract. The appellant, therefore, moved an application under Section 9 of the said Act seeking various interim measures as prayed for therein. The respondent No. 1 having filed its appearance raised the objection as regards the jurisdiction of the court, by submitting an application under Section 27 read with Section 2(e) of the said Act. The court below after hearing the learned counsels for the parties returned the application of the appellant filed under Section 9 of the said Act for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction, vide the impugned order dated 25.10.12. The said order is under challenge before this court by way of the present appeal.;