Ranjan Agencies Vs. Union of India

Ranjan Agencies vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 16, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/680967

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/680967
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
Decided On: Dec 16, 1998
Case Number: Suit No. 2060/1991
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case dealt with the determination of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court over a matter involving a contract for construction of a complex - The tenders for the construction were accepted at Gurgaon and the work site and the tenders were awarded at Mansard - The agreement had authorised the chief engineer...

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 14, 17 and 20; Arbitration Act - Sections 20

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjan Agencies

Advocate Mr. D. Moitra, Adv

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 14, 17 and 20; Arbitration Act - Sections 20
Reported In: 1999IAD(Delhi)151

Excerpt

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the decision of this court in sushil ansal v. union of india, reported in air 1980 delhi, page 45, the ratio of which was approved by the full bench decision of this court in m/s. gupta sanitary stores vs . union of india : air1985 delhi122 . in sushil ansal's case (supra) almost a similar issue came up for consideration before this court and it was held that in respect of the contract with the union of india for carrying out flooring in certain uildings was entered into at kanpur which was accepted at lucknow and amount of final bill for contract performed was paid at kanpur, the delhi courts shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 14 & 17 notwithstanding the fact that the arbitrator was appointed at delhi and he made the award at delhi. in the light of the aforesaid decision of this court approved by the subsequent full bench decision of this court, i find sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and in my considered opinion this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under section 20 of the arbitration act. having held so, i order for return of the petition to the petitioner to enable it to file the same in appropriate and competent court. the petition may be returned to the counsel appearing for the petitioner immediately. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

DR. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties and also for referring the disputes arising between the parties to the said sole arbitrator for adjudication and decision. It is stated in the petition that in the course of execution of the contract for construction of permanent complex for NSG at Mansard SH Construction of Trading Complex for SAG/SRG Pockets certain disputes have arisen and the said disputes are required to be referred to the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. According to the said clause 25 in case of disputes and differences arising between the parties in respect of and relating to various aspects of the contract the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, in charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be the Chief Engineer the Administrative Head of the said CPWD at the time of such appointment. The petitioner has set out the areas of dispute in paragraph 9 of the petition.

2. The respondents have contested the petition on various grounds including that of want of territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is stated by the respondent that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the tenders for the work 'Constriction of Training Blocks in SAG/SRG Pockets' were awarded to the petitioner contractor by the Executive Engineer, National Security Guard Project Division, Mansard, with the Headquarters office of the Division at Mansard. It is also stated that the site of the work itself is at Mansard in Haryana and the tenders were accepted by the Superintending Engineer with his office at Gurgaon in Haryana.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff however, states that since the appointing authority of the arbitrator is based at Delhi and thereforee, this court shall have jurisdiction. I however, cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the decision of this court in Sushil Ansal v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1980 Delhi, page 45, the ratio of which was approved by the Full Bench decision of this court in M/s. Gupta Sanitary Stores Vs . Union of India : AIR1985 Delhi122 . In Sushil Ansal's case (supra) almost a similar issue came up for consideration before this court and it was held that in respect of the contract with the Union of India for carrying out flooring in certain uildings was entered into at Kanpur which was accepted at Lucknow and amount of final bill for contract performed was paid at Kanpur, the Delhi Courts shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 14 & 17 notwithstanding the fact that the arbitrator was appointed at Delhi and he made the award at Delhi. In the light of the aforesaid decision of this court approved by the subsequent Full Bench decision of this court, I find sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and in my considered opinion this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Having held so, I order for return of the petition to the petitioner to enable it to file the same in appropriate and competent court. The petition may be returned to the counsel appearing for the petitioner immediately. No costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1998 Same Parties Ranjan Agencies vs Union of India Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 14, 17 and 20;...

Arbitration