UREKA ENGINEERS v. GOVT. OF HARYANA & ANR.

1. The impugned order disposes of two applications filed by the respondents/defendants/Govt. of Haryana. One is the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2014. The second application is the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi and which application was dismissed as infructuous in view of allowing of the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 2014:DHC:5406

2. Though, the provision of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act will not apply as rightly argued by the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff because what is challenged is not any action of the respondent/defendant under the contract which contained the arbitration clause, but an order dated 19.7.2013 black listing the petitioner/plaintiff with respect to future tenders/contracts to be issued/awarded by the respondents/defendants.

3. I have put it to counsel for the petitioner that even if the order allowing the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has to be allowed, the courts at Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction in view of para 33 and prayer clauses contained in para 34 as the plaint, and which read as under:- “33. That this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit at Delhi as the plaintiff office for all purpose is at Delhi and all the correspondence was made by the plaintiff at the registered office at New Delhi and also received all the tenders/letter at Delhi.

34. That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10,25,000/- and for which appropriate court fee has been affixed. Damages etc. Rs.10,00,000/- Legal notice fees Rs. 10,000/- Off expenses etc. postage Print, legal consultation fee Rs. 15,000/- Rs.10,25,000/- PRAYER a) That in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree of damages, loss of reputation, goodwill, self earning, expenses of the establishment etc. for Rs.10,25,000/- kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendant to make the payment. The plaintiff undertake to pay the court fee as and when the Hon’ble Court award the damages along with cost of the suit. b) passed an order for setting aside the alleged order recommendations dated 19.7.2013 passed by the alleged committee. c) grant stay on the operation to the recommendations of the Chief Engineers committee. d) any relief the court may consider appropriate.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner only argues that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the plaint should be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for being presented to the court of competent territorial jurisdiction. I agree. Once a suit is filed in court not having territorial jurisdiction then what applies is the provision of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and not Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by treating the same under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, and the plaint of the petitioner will stand returned for being filed before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction in Haryana/Chandigarh. Trial court will now give a specific date for return of the plaint to the petitioner/plaintiff as per Order 7 Rule 10A CPC.

5. Petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. No costs.

OCTOBER 16, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib