1999 (2) TMI 686 - SC - Indian Laws

Bombay High Court Affirms Jurisdiction in Arbitration Award Dispute

Food Corporation of India Versus M/s. Evdomen Corporation

The Bombay High Court upheld its jurisdiction to entertain an arbitration award filing between the Food Corporation of India and a respondent over freight ... - Issues:Jurisdiction of Bombay High Court to entertain arbitration award filing.Analysis:The case involved a dispute between the Food Corporation of India and a respondent regarding freight and demurrage charges under a charter party agreement for transporting rice. The arbitration took place in Bombay, and the arbitrators filed the award in the Bombay High Court. The appellant contended that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction to accept the award due to the absence of any cause of action within its jurisdiction. The High Court upheld its jurisdiction based on the appellant having a place of business in Bombay. The appellant argued that Section 20(a) of the Civil Procedure Code did not confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court as no part of the cause of action arose there. The appellant also cited the explanation to Section 20, stating that a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its principal office and any subordinate office where a cause of action arises. However, this explanation did not grant jurisdiction to the Bombay High Court in this case.The appellant referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to arbitration proceedings, and the jurisdiction of the court is governed by its provisions. It was noted that Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to a High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under its original civil jurisdiction is determined by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which states that the court would have jurisdiction where the defendant carries on business. Therefore, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction over the dispute due to the appellant carrying on business in Bombay.The appellant filed an application before the Civil Judge in Jagatsinghpur under the Arbitration Act for directing the arbitrators to file the original award in court. The award was later filed in Bombay, leading to the appellant amending the application to request a transfer of the award to Jagatsinghpur, which was rejected. The Civil Judge directed the appellant to file objections in Bombay. The appellant did not rely on Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act before the courts. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no need to set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and dismissed the appeal without costs.