NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD Vs. M/S. DELTA MECHCONS (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dtd. 13/7/2022, passed by the learned Commercial Court, Shillong in Commercial (Arb.) Case No. 6 of 2019, whereby the learned Court below, held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition that had been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, to challenge an Arbitral Award dtd. 27/4/2019. The learned Court below went on to conclude that it was the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which had the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the said Sec. 34 petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts necessary are that the parties entered into a contract, which was executed at Shillong on 17/7/1995, for certain works to be undertaken at Dibrugarh, Assam. Thereafter, as disputes arose between the parties, arbitration was invoked which was conducted in New Delhi, and an award was then passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 27/4/2019. Against the award, the petitioner had filed an application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the A&C Act) before the Commercial Court, Shillong on 25/7/2019, and the same was registered as Commercial (Arb.) Case No. 6 of 2019. Similarly, the respondents herein also filed a Sec. 34 application before the High Court of Delhi, being OMP (COMM) 351 of 2019 on 23/8/2019. Against the Sec. 34 application filed by the petitioner, the respondents filed an objection/preliminary written statement raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at Shillong. The learned Commercial Court then by its judgment dtd. 13/7/2022, concluded that the High Court of Delhi, had exclusive jurisdiction and that the Courts in Shillong had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The petitioner being aggrieved on the ground that the contract agreement did not specify any such seat of arbitration, or that the Arbitral Tribunal had determined any seat, is therefore before this Court by way of this instant revision application.

(3.) At the outset, it has been contended that the instant revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the impugned order which has held that the Commercial Court in Shillong does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Sec. 34 application filed by the petitioner, is not an appealable order under Order 43 CPC, nor covered by Sec. 37 of the A&C Act. It is further submitted that the proviso to Sec. 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of a High Court, only against orders listed in Order 43 CPC and Sec. 37 of the A&C Act. The impugned order, it is submitted, not being covered under appealable orders as aforementioned, only the present revision petition shall lie, and that this Court had territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the challenge in the present petition is not against the contents of the said award, but only against the impugned order. It has also been contended that the execution of the contract agreement was also done in Shillong, and as such, it means that the Courts in Shillong, including the Commercial Court and High Court, will have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter.