Aarka Sports Management V. Kalsi Buildcon.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioner and the respondent enter into an agreement on 16th March 2018. The agreement consists of an arbitration clause that is clause 15 of the operation, maintenance, and management agreement. The petitioner on 26th February 2019 invoked the arbitration vide notice. The respondent replied to this notice on 20th March 2019. The dispute in this particular case is regarding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this particular petition. The reason for this particular dispute is because the agreement was decided at Ranchi. The agreement was signed at Lucknow and the place of performance of the agreement was signed by the petitioner and the respondent was Patna which is the capital of Bihar. So, the problem was that none of the places was chosen as the jurisdiction but Delhi was chosen, and hence, the dispute arose.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:
The issue, in this case, was about the appointment of the arbitrator according to section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act by the court, and which court has the jurisdiction to decide this.
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE:
The petitioner argued that according to clause 15, the clause specifically provides exclusive jurisdiction to the High court of Delhi to entertain the matter. But the respondent argued that the agreement was decided at Ranchi. The agreement was signed at Lucknow and the place of performance of the agreement was signed by the petitioner and the respondent was Patna which is the capital of Bihar. So, none of the places have a relation with Delhi so, Delhi cannot be the jurisdiction to decide the matter. And further argued that that the "Court of proper jurisdiction" is the "Court" mentioned under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It was submitted that the Delhi High Court is not a competent Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as the course of action did not arise at Delhi nor the petitioner or the respondent work at Delhi and the agreement which the parties signed does not provide any seat of arbitration.
The court decided that if the parties do not have any particular seat of arbitration, then in such a case the seat of arbitration will be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 20 sub-clause 2 of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996.
In this case, the parties have not agreed on the seat of arbitration, so in this case, the court which has the jurisdiction to entertain the application to appoint an arbitrator under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act will have the jurisdiction and will be the court as defined under section 2 sub-clause 1. But the agreement that was signed on 16th March 2018 does not specify any seat of arbitration. Since the parties have not agreed on the seat of the arbitration, the Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Sections 16 to 20 of Code of Civil Procedure would be competent to entertain an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
They decided that the Delhi High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.