Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1372 (DEL)

Mayo Design v. Yaskawa Robotics India

2014-05-01

VIPIN SANGHI

body2014
ORDER Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the respondent has taken instructions and he submits that the respondent challenges the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to appoint the Arbitrator. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and proceed to deal with the said challenge. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent had placed the purchase order dated 6.6.2011 on the petitioner while its registered office was situated at 43, Community Center, third floor, Bhageria House, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, which purchase order was issued from the said address. It is also not in dispute that the original agreement contained in the purchase order did not contain an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement came to be entered in conciliation proceedings held on 30.8.2012. 3. The submission of learned Counsel for the respondent is that by the time disputes had arisen between the parties, in respect whereof conciliation was held on 30.8.2012, the registered office of the respondent had shifted to Bangalore. He submits that, therefore, this Court would not have jurisdiction to appoint the Arbitrator. 4. In terms of the said arbitration agreement, both parties nominated their respective Arbitrators. Whereas the Arbitrator nominated by the petitioner was located at Noida; and the one nominated by the respondent pertinently was located at Delhi. 5. After the two Arbitrators had been nominated, the petitioner vide letter dated 25.10.2012 had conveyed certain conditions, one of which was that the arbitration shall be subject to jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The respondent had responded to this communication vide letter dated 29.10.2012. The respondent did not contest the petitioner's claim that the arbitration shall be subject to jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Consequently, there was a tacit acceptance of this condition by the respondent. 6. It is not disputed by the respondent that part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi since the respondent was situated in Delhi when the purchase order was issued on 6.6.2011. In my view, to determine whether this Court is the competent Court, in the light of the definition of the expression, 'Court' contained in Section 2(1)(e), it needs to be examined whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The test is, whether the petitioner would have been entitled to file a civil suit in Delhi, had the Arbitration Agreement not been entered into between the parties. 7. The test is, whether the petitioner would have been entitled to file a civil suit in Delhi, had the Arbitration Agreement not been entered into between the parties. 7. Since a part of cause of action has, admittedly, arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court--had the parties not subsequently entered into the arbitration agreement, the Courts at Delhi would have had the jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit of the petitioner in respect of its claim. Merely because the conciliation proceedings may not have been held at Delhi, and by that time the registered office of the respondent was relocated to Bangalore, it does not make any difference to the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the objection of the respondent is rejected. 8. By order dated 22.4.2014, this Court had concluded that there is a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. 9. It is not the respondents case that disputes have not arisen between the parties, or that they are not referable to arbitration. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. I appoint Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate (Mobile No. 9810121790) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arisen out of the aforesaid agreement. The parties agree that the fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be payable in accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and shall be shared equally by the parties. It is ordered accordingly. The parties shall appear before the Arbitral Tribunal on 15.5.2014 at 4.30 p.m. Neither party shall seek nor be granted any undue adjournment by the Arbitral Tribunal. The petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator.