Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2020 · Nafr High Court
Case Details
1/10 (Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2020) 2025:CGHC:1746-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2020 M/s. Agrawal Structure Mills Private Limited, through: its Director Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Madan Lal Agrawal, Corporate Office: Near Krishna Talkies, Samta Colony, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus ... Appellant(s) 1. M/s. Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Moti Bagh Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001. 2. M/s. State Bank of India, Corporate Account Group, 58 Shrimali Society, Navarangpura, Ahemdabad, Gujarat 380009. 3. M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited, Adani House, Near Ahmedabad, Navarangpura, Circle, Mithakhali Gujarat 389009. ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
:- Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Yogesh Netam, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Kshtij Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal 2/10 (Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2020) Judgment on Board [10-01-2025] Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’ for short), the Appellant herein has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the Order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Commercial Court (District Level), Nava Raipur, Raipur, by which the preliminary objection raised on behalf of Respondent No.3 herein has been allowed and the application of the Appellant filed under Section 9 of the Act was rejected holding that the Court at Raipur has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Act and the Courts at New Delhi would have the jurisdiction to hear the said application. 2. Briefly summarized the facts of the case are that an application under Section 9 of the Act was preferred by the Appellant before the Commercial Court praying that Respondent No.3 be restrained from raising any claim relating to their invoices raised on 17.12.2018 and further they be also restrained from committing breach of obligation of Agreement dated 4.12.2018. 3/10 (Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2020) 3. A preliminary objection was raised by Respondent No.3 stating that the application under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable as per relevant Clauses 17 and 18 of the General Conditions of Contract (“GCC” for short) annexed to the Agreement and as per Clause 18, the venue and seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the Courts in Delhi will have exclusive jurisdiction. Once the parties have decided for the seat of arbitration to be New Delhi, it operates as an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring the Courts at New Delhi with the power to supervise the arbitration process. Thus, the Respondent No.3, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd.1, prayed for the application under Section 9 of the Act to be rejected. 4. Appellant filed their reply stating that the Commercial Court at Raipur does have the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Act. 5. However, the learned Commercial Court passed the impugned Order dated 12.12.2019 holding that since the parties have already agreed on their venue and seat of arbitration to be at New Delhi, the Courts at 1 (2017) 7 SCC 678 4/10 (Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2020) Delhi would have the exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising under the contract documents and thus proceeded to reject the application of the Appellant filed under Section 9 of the Act as not maintainable. 6. It is this Order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court which has been put to challenge by the Appellant in the present appeal. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the learned Commercial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting their application under Section 9 of the Act as not maintainable, as the GCC has not been signed by the parties and as such the Agreement would not be applicable. Therefore, the learned Commercial Court ought to have entertained the application under Section 9 of the Act and decided the same on merits. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 would support the impugned Order and submit that the application under Section 9 of the Act has rightly been rejected by the learned Commercial Court, as the Appellant and Respondent No.3 have entered into an Agreement dated 4.12.2018 and the recital of the 5/10 (Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2020) Agreement would clearly show that the parties have agreed upon to extend the GCC as a part of the Agreement and as such by reference and necessary implication the terms of the GCC stood incorporated as the part of the Agreement. Thus, prayed for the appeal to be dismissed being devoid of merits. To support his submissions, he relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Giriraj Garg v. Coal India Ltd. and Others 2, BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. 3 and NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.4. 9. I have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 10. The Appellant, along with the memo of appeal, has filed the application under Section 9 of the Act which they had filed before the learned Commercial Court. The Agreement dated 4.12.2018 is also annexed as Annexure A-1, the averments of which clearly depict that the parties have agreed that all the terms and conditions of the GCC shall be applicable to the Agreement entered into between the parties. Clauses 2 3 4