Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as under The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for sale of 40,000 WMT Wet Metric Tonne of Iron Ore Pellets on FOB terms and payment was to be made by Letter of Credit in Bhubaneswar.
The High Court held that in absence of any express clause excluding jurisdiction of other companyrts, both the Madras High Court and the Orissa High Court will have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings.
The appellant companytested the petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court on the ground that the parties have agreed that Seat of arbitration be Bhubaneswar and therefore, only the Orissa High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator.
The loading port was Dhamra Port, Bhadrak, Odisha and destination was Chennai Ennore Ports, Tamil Nadu.
Clause 18 of the agreement between the parties companytains an arbitration clause which reads as under Arbitration shall be under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Law 1996 and the Venue of Arbitration shall be Bhubaneswar.
The respondent on 07.10.2016 invoked arbitration clause.
The appellant denied any liability to pay damages on the ground that companytract was later modified and that the respondent breached the material terms of the companytract and this led to the dispute between the parties.
Challenging the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The Madras High Court vide impugned order appointed a former judge of the Madras High Court as the sole arbitrator by holding that mere designation of Seat by parties does number oust the jurisdiction of other companyrts other than at the Seat of arbitration.
Dispute arose between the parties regarding the price and payment terms and the appellant did number deliver the goods to the respondent.
The respondent claimed for damages alleging that it had to procure the Iron Ore Pellets from other sources at higher rates.
The appellant did number agree for the appointment of the arbitrator.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
Hence, the respondent filed petition being OP No.398 of 2018 under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the Act before the Madras High Court on 24.01.2018 for appointment of sole arbitrator.
Whether the Madras High Court companyld exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite the fact that the agreement companytains the clause that venue of arbitration shall be Bhubaneswar, is the question falling for companysideration in this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2019.07.25 160707 IST Reason appeal.
