The appellant had filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) challenging an order dated October 20, 2023, passed by the Commercial Court, Gorakhpur (“Order”) in a petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (“34 Petition”).
The respondent objected primarily on the ground that the tender was issued in New Delhi in 2007 and the respondent’s bid, which was accepted vide Letter of Acceptance in September 2008, was also issued by the Railway Board, New Delhi (“Letter of Acceptance”). Further, under clause 23 and 24 of the Letter of Acceptance (“Jurisdiction Clause”), it has been specified, inter alia, that the courts of place from where the tender documents and acceptance of tender has been issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide any disputes. Therefore, the courts of New Delhi alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.
The appellant countered the same by submitting that the cause of action has partly risen at Gorakhpur as the main party, North-Eastern Railways, was headquartered in Gorakhpur and the payment under the contract was also made at Gorakhpur.
The Commercial Court heard both parties and passed an order holding that as part of the cause of action had arisen in New Delhi and the parties had agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts vide the jurisdiction clause, courts of New Delhi alone had jurisdiction.
Source: Barandbench
