2011 (10) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2002. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant-Company and erstwhile non-applicant Company which has now merged in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. entered into an agreement for sale of lubricants and specialties and the applicant-Company was made as consignment agent of the non-applicant Company. In the said agreement, Clause 17.0 relates to arbitration. Within a span of few months, the applicant-Company had accumulated a large unsold stock under CA account due to slow and unwilling lifting of lubricant by retail outlets and market. Despite the fact that when the existing stock of lubricant could not be lifted by the applicant-Company, the IBP Company (now IOCL) forced the applicant-Company to add more fresh stock for r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ator has been filed by the applicant-company. 3. Counsel for the non-applicant Company in his reply has raised two objections:-  (i) There is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties in terms of Section 7 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.  (ii) As per Clause No. 18 of Consignment Agency Agreement relating to the jurisdiction, the agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Kolkata. Therefore, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. 4. Counsel for the non-applicant Company submits that when certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. In support of which, counsel for the non-ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed. 6. In the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 107, Supreme Court has considered Section 28 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and further Section 2(c), 20, 31(3), (4) and 41 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. After detailed consideration of the said provision of law, in arbitration clause 31 and specified Ouster Clause in the Second purchase order dated 2.12.1987 wherein it has been mentioned that Ml disputes, differences or questions whatever which may arise between the purchaser and ....