Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT arbitration application has been filed u/S. 11 of the Arbitration & Reconciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator to settle the alleged arbitral dispute arising from terms & conditions of the contract agreement dt. 08.02.2010.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner -applicant and the respondents entered into a written agreement dt. 08.02.2010 whereby the applicant was assigned work order for providing, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of 711 mm. dia 6.40 mm thick M.S. Pipeline from Headworks upto water treatment plant at Hungund Town (length 8 KMs.) from comprehensive water supply scheme Hungund, Ilkal, Kustagi and enroute villages with Alamatti reservoir as source under Uidssmt. The terms & conditions of the contract work was reduced in writing which includes clause of arbitration in the event of any dispute arising out of the contract/work order dt. 08.02.2010. The petitioner/applicant started work pursuant to the work order dt. 08.02.2010 and as alleged out of 8 KMs. length, M.S. Pipeline was laid shifted upto 4 Kms. at site but as it reveals from the record, the dispute arose between the parties arising from the general conditions of parties arising from the general conditions of contract agreement dt. 08.02.2010. As alleged, the petitioner -applicant failed to complete the work order within the prescribed time, the respondents issued letter dt. 28.09.2010 terminating the work order and thereafter, as averred by counsel for applicant, sent a legal notice dt. 18.11.2010 and also requested later on to refer the arbitral dispute to the Arbitrator under Cl. 28 of the contract agreement and thereafter approached this court by filing instant application u/S. 11 of the Act for appointment of sole Arbitrator.
(3.) AFTER the notices of the present application came to be served, reply has been filed by the respondents and apart from the reply on merits, the respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of present application in this court and submitted that the territorial jurisdiction does not lie with the High Court of Rajasthan and it was alleged that the contract agreement, between the parties, was signed and executed at Bangalore (Karnataka) and the work was executed by the petitioner -Company at Karnataka in supervision & control of respondent No. 2 at Bangalore and as per Cl. 28 of the contract agreement, if any dispute arises, the same has to be resolved by the sole Arbitrator to be nominated by the Chairman & Managing Director of IVRCL, whose office is situated at Hyderabad and the registered office of the respondent -Company is also at Hyderabad and apart from it Cl. 29 excludes jurisdiction of other High Courts where it was agreed between the parties that it shall be under the jurisdiction of court of Hyderabad. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant Cls. 28 & 29 of the contract agreement, which are duly executed between the parties, ad infra: "28. DISPUTES: In the event of any dispute arising out of this Contract/Work Order, the parties hereto agree that the matter shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator who is an officer of M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. (other than concerned with this Contract/Work Order), nominated by Chairman & Managing Director of IVRCL. The award of the Arbitrator so nominated shall be final conclusive and binding on all parties to the dispute. The venue of Arbitration is at Hyderabad. All the expenses of Arbitration shall be borne by the party who has invoked the Arbitration. 29. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement/Work Order shall be governed by and construes in accordance with the laws of India and under the jurisdiction of court of Hyderabad.";