Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1354 (PAT)

Union Of India(Uoi) v. Sunirman Private Ltd.

2008-09-05

SUBASH CHANDRA JHA

body2008
Judgment Subash Chandra Jha, J. 1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur and others have preferred this appeal for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2008 passed by the District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Civil Misc. Case No. 138 of 2007 (Arbitration) by which a case was dismissed on the point of jurisdiction. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and respondent. 3. The fact, in short, is that award holder M/s. Sunirman Private Ltd., a firm at Kolkata entered into an agreement at Kolkata with the Eastern Railways on 21.09.1991 in respect of earth work in formation and construction of minor bridges in connection with provision of third line between Deheri-on-sone and Mughalsarai and Section II between Karandiya and Sheosagar Road (Km. 565.14 to Km. 586.20). Since the work could not be initially completed within the stipulated time, the Railway administration terminated the contract in April, 1995, but subsequently it was withdrawn. 4. However, the dispute arose between both the parties and the dispute was referred to Arbitration. Justice G.N. Roy, a former Judge of Hon ble Supreme Court of India was appointed as sole Arbitrator by the order of Hon ble the Chief Justice of Kolkata High Court. In the Arbitration, statement of claim and counter claim were filed and evidence adduced and after hearing the parties, the award was passed on 1.7.2006 holding the contractor-respondent herein entitled to get a sum of Rs. 40,16,000/-(Forty lacs Sixteen thousand) which was to be paid by September, 2007, failing which the award holder was to get interest @ 12 % per annum on the awarded sum from the date of award till realisation. 5. The only point which was raised here was in respect of jurisdiction of Sasaram District court. Perused the order impugned from which it appears that Mr. Justice. G.N. Roy, a former Judge of Hon ble Supreme Court of India was appointed as the sole Arbitrator by the Hon ble the Chief Justice of Kolkata High Court. At that time, Headquarter of Eastern Railway was at Kolkata within territorial jurisdiction of which area of entire Bihar including Sasaram district fell. The office of contractor M/s. Sunirman Private Ltd. was also located in Kolkata. 6. At that time, Headquarter of Eastern Railway was at Kolkata within territorial jurisdiction of which area of entire Bihar including Sasaram district fell. The office of contractor M/s. Sunirman Private Ltd. was also located in Kolkata. 6. Deputy Chief Engineer/Controlling Officer of Railway Administration also raised an objection before the Arbitrator regarding jurisdiction of Arbitrator- Tribunal to decide the arbitration case stating that the Tribunal which was constituted under the orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice Kolkata High Court, could not have been constituted under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. It was also contended before him that under the terms between the parties, the General Manager of the Railways would have referred the dispute before the Railway Officers. So, it is revealed that the jurisdiction of Kolkata was not challenged on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. Rather, terms of reference of award and the agreement was made within the jurisdiction of Kolkata. But, such objection was not raised here. It is the jurisdiction of Sasaram which has been referred for which site construction of contractual agreement was made. 8. To me, it appears that some area i.e. about 25 Km. fell within the jurisdiction of Sasaram, but so far work being carried on in between Sasaram and Mughalsarai, it cannot be said that Mughalsarai falls within the State of Bihar. Moreover, Section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act has been referred to show that any High Court can not be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction where petition for setting aside the award should have been filed. 9. But it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that even in that case, it could only be the Kolkata ,where such petition for setting aside the impugned order could be filed. Moreover, it has also been urged on behalf of the respondents that even the Kolkata High Court has original jurisdiction and petition for setting aside the award on behalf of the appellant would not justify the territorial jurisdiction of Sasaram, which is in the State of Bihar. 10. Learned Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon ble Apex Court in S.L.A. (Civil) No. 18344 of 2004 Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. V/s. Krishna Travel Agency, which is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 11. 10. Learned Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon ble Apex Court in S.L.A. (Civil) No. 18344 of 2004 Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. V/s. Krishna Travel Agency, which is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 11. It has, thus, been argued on behalf of the respondent that the learned District Judge, Sasaram, has rightly held that the District court of Sasaram does not have jurisdiction to dispose of the petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 12. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.