Abdul Haque Vs. I.C.D.S. Ltd.

Abdul Haque vs i.C.D.S. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 16, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/721764

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/721764
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: K.S. Radhakrishnan and; K. Padmanabhan Nair, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 16, 2003
Case Number: C.M.A. No. 17 of 2002
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

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

- - ' 2. Interpreting Clause 20 of the agreement as well as Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court below took the view that the courts in Dakshina Kannada alone have the jurisdiction.

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Haque

Advocate P.K. Ravindran Puzhankara and; Jayasree Manoj Kumar, Advs.

Respondent

i.C.D.S. Ltd.

Advocate S.R. Dyananda Prabhu and; K.S. Rajesh, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2
Cases Referred: National Starch & Chemicals v. Weikfield Products Co.
Reported In: 2003(2)KLT166

Excerpt

- - ' 2. interpreting clause 20 of the agreement as well as section 2(e) of the arbitration and conciliation act, the court below took the view that the courts in dakshina kannada alone have the jurisdiction.k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. this appeal is preferred against the order in arbitration o.p. no. 266/2000 on the file of the district court ernakulam. an application was filed under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 for setting aside the award' dated 29.4.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent herein. application was resisted by the 1st respondent on the plea that such a petition would not be maintainable in the district court, ernakulam. reference was made to clause 20 of the agreement between the parties. clause 20 of the said agreement reads as follows:- 'this agreement is made and accepted at manipal and hire instalments specified in schedule 'b' shall be payable at manipal or such other places specified by the owner and all the terms and conditions of this agreement are to be observed and performed at there itself and the courts in dakshina kannada alone and no other courts whatsoever will have jurisdiction to try all or any suits in respect of any claim or disputes arising out of this agreement or in any way relating to the same.'2. interpreting clause 20 of the agreement as well as section 2(e) of the arbitration and conciliation act, the court below took the view that the courts in dakshina kannada alone have the jurisdiction. counsel for the appellants relied on a decision reported in national starch & chemicals v. weikfield products co. (india) (1990 (1) klt 217). a reference was made in paragraph 7 of the judgment. it is very clear from clause 20 of the agreement that the courts in dakshina kannada alone and no other courts whatsoever will have the jurisdiction to try any disputes arising out of the agreement. in view of the clear terms contained in clause 20 of the agreement, we are of the view that the courts in dakshina kannada alone have jurisdiction to try the case. one month's time is granted to the parties for moving the courts in dakshina kannada as stipulated in the agreement. we make it clear that we are expressing our opinion on.....

Full Judgment

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order in Arbitration O.P. No. 266/2000 on the file of the District Court Ernakulam. An application was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award' dated 29.4.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent herein. Application was resisted by the 1st respondent on the plea that such a petition would not be maintainable in the District Court, Ernakulam. Reference was made to Clause 20 of the agreement between the parties. Clause 20 of the said agreement reads as follows:-

'This Agreement is made and accepted at Manipal and hire instalments specified in Schedule 'B' shall be payable at Manipal or such other places specified by the owner and all the terms and conditions of this Agreement are to be observed and performed at there itself and the Courts in Dakshina Kannada alone and no other Courts whatsoever will have jurisdiction to try all or any suits in respect of any claim or disputes arising out of this Agreement or in any way relating to the same.'

2. Interpreting Clause 20 of the agreement as well as Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court below took the view that the courts in Dakshina Kannada alone have the jurisdiction. Counsel for the appellants relied on a decision reported in National Starch & Chemicals v. Weikfield Products Co. (India) (1990 (1) KLT 217). A reference was made in paragraph 7 of the judgment. It is very clear from Clause 20 of the agreement that the Courts in Dakshina Kannada alone and no other Courts whatsoever will have the jurisdiction to try any disputes arising out of the agreement. In view of the clear terms contained in Clause 20 of the agreement, we are of the view that the Courts in Dakshina Kannada alone have jurisdiction to try the case. One month's time is granted to the parties for moving the courts in Dakshina Kannada as stipulated in the agreement. We make it clear that we are expressing our opinion on the merits of the case.

This appeal is disposed of as above.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2003 Same Parties Abdul Haque vs i.C.D.S. Ltd. Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge K.S. Radhakrishnan and; K. Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. Acts & Sections Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2

Arbitration