S N. Bhargava, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of learned Distt. Judge, Kota, dismissing application of the petitioner under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the ground that the court had no territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) Petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at Kota and factory in Industrial Estate, Kota and is dealing with Ingots hoist, crane and other heavy steel structural fabrication erection work. hydro electric in Thermal Power Projects and supplying the same throughout the country. In response to the tender notice, petitioner submitted a tender on 4.5.1977 which was accepted by the non-petitioner and a work order was issued for supply of 50 sets of electrically operated mechanical hoists for Shah Nehar Barage Gates. Petitioner supplied the requisite gates to the non petitioner from Kota which have been utilised by the non petitioner. Some dispute arose between the parties in relation to the supply of said material and since in the agreement, there were terms of arbitration, as suggested by the non petitioner, Shri S.S. Mani, Chemical Engineer, Deptt. of Industries, Punjab was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. Non petitioner participated in the arbitration proceedings and the Arbitrator passed award on 8.10.1948, awarding a sum of Rs. 14,52,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award till actual payment or till award is made rule of the court, whichever is earlier. Petitioner, in the presence of non petitioner, requested to the Arbitrator that award be filed in the court of Distt. Judge, Kota. No objection was raised by the representative of the non petitioner and as it had concented to the request of the petitioner, the Arbitrator agreed that the award be filed before the Distt. Judge, Kota for making it a rule of the court. The said award was filed in the court of Distt. Judge on 18.10.1984. Petitioner also filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award rule of the court. Notice was issued. Non petitioner's counsel sought adjournment for filing reply of the application which was granted and adjournment was again sought on that day and the case was again adjourned. A reply to the application was filed on 2.5.1985 wherein a preliminary objection was raised that the Distt. Judge, Kota had no territorial jurisdiction and therefore, award could not be made rule of the court. The Distt. Judge after bearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Distt. Judge had no territorial jurisdiction and therefore, refused to make the award rule of the court and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that goods are maunfactured in Kota and the registered office of the petitioner company is also located in Kota and as per condition No. 23-A of the agreement inspection of the goods was to be carried out at Kota, by the representative of the non petitioner and only after inspection the goods were to be sup- plied and in fact, the goods were inspected as per Annexures 1 to 3 filed with the petition. He has further submitted that condition No. 10 of the agreement also provides that payment of 90% value of the goods was to be made against the bills after inspection immediately at Kota before they were despatched, and therefore, Distt. Judge, Kota had jurisdiction to entertain the said application and pass a decree in terms of the award as part of cause of action did arise in Kota. In this connection he has placed reliance on M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation v. Ratan Singh & Sons, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2075.;