Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Jurisdiction in Arbitration Matter — Jurisdiction Upheld Based on Business Presence.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a charter party agreement between the Food Corporation of India and M/s. Evdomen Corporation for the transport of rice from Bangkok to Paradeep Port in Orissa, signed on 30.9.1988. Following disagreements over freight and demurrage charges, the parties referred their disputes to arbitration, which took place in Bombay. The Bombay High Court upheld its jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration award, which the appellant contested, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the Civil Procedure Code, particularly Section 20, which outlines jurisdiction based on the defendant's business location. The court noted that under the explanation to Section 20, a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its principal office, and since the appellant had a business presence in Bombay, the High Court had jurisdiction. The court also referenced the case of Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd. to support its reasoning. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction without costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction of Courts - Determination of Jurisdiction - Arbitration Act, 1940, Sections 2(c), 31(1) - The court examined whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration award based on the appellant's business presence in Bombay. It was held that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction as the appellant carried on business there, despite the cause of action not arising within its jurisdiction (Paras 6-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration award filed by the appellant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the arbitration award based on the appellant's business presence in Bombay.

Law Points

  • Arbitration jurisdiction
  • Civil Procedure Code jurisdiction
  • arbitration award filing
  • corporate business presence
  • Letters Patent jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1999 LawText (SC) (02) 60

1999-02-17

Sujata V. Manohar, R.C. Lahoti

Food Corporation of India

M/s. Evdomen Corporation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding jurisdiction over arbitration award.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

Filing Reason

Disputes over freight and demurrage charges under a charter party agreement.

Previous Decisions

Bombay High Court upheld its jurisdiction based on the appellant's business presence.

Issues

Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the arbitration award Applicability of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that no part of the cause of action arose in Bombay. Respondent contended that jurisdiction was valid due to appellant's business presence.

Ratio Decidendi

The jurisdiction of the court to entertain arbitration proceedings is determined by the location of the defendant's business, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Civil Procedure Code.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant who is in the position of a defendant, has one of its places of business at Bombay. In view of this explanation, the Bombay High Court would not have jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Procedural History

The arbitration took place in Bombay, and the award was filed in the Bombay High Court. The appellant filed Arbitration Misc. Case No. 13 of 1995 in Jagatsinghpur, which was rejected, leading to the appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration Act, 1940: 2(c), 31(1)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 20, 120
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Highest Bidder in Excise Case; Holds Cancellation of Sale Invalid and Directs Grant of Licences. Interpretation of Rule 19 of Mysore Excise Rules: Requirements of Statement and Security Inapplicable When Shops in Multip...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Illegal Disposal of Seized Gold Jewellery Without Notice and Before Confiscation Order. Customs Authorities Directed to Pay Current Market Value for 1028 Grams of Gold Disposed in Violation of Sectio...