IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 FAO.No. 122 of 2010() --------------------- OP(ARB)NO.15/2003 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS:PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. K.N.SATHYAPALAN (DECESED SINCE), CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKKIDOM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505. 2. SYAMALA SATHYAPALAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKKIDOM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505. 3. S.SATHEESH, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKKIDOM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505. 4. S.UMESH, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKKIDOM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.ICDS LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, SYNDICATE, MABIPAL-576 119. 2. B.I.SHARMA, ADVOCATE, UDUPPI. 3. K.RAJEEV, PUTHEN VILA VEEDU, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. JOHN BERNARD, MATHILIL, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. S.R. DAYANANDA PRABHU THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O.No.122 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. There is an agreement between the first respondent ICDS Ltd and the deceased first appellant and some others. According to the first respondent, there is an arbitration clause in that agreement thereby meaning that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. An arbitration proceedings was held in Udupi. An award was passed. The appellants challenge that award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Court, Kollam. That application has been returned by the court below as per the impugned order, for presentation FAO122/10 -: 2 :- before the appropriate Court. The said order has been made holding that the Kollam Court lacked jurisdiction and only the court at Udupi has jurisdiction. To buttress this, the court below relied on a decision of this Court in Abdul Haque v. I.C.D.S.Ltd., 2003(2) KLT 166, which even according to the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent company, was a case where there was an agreement between the parties confining the jurisdiction to be at courts in Dakshina Kannada. In the case in hand, admittedly, there is no contract between the parties specifically choosing one among the different courts which have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the contract, had this litigation been filed as a civil suit. Therefore, going by the judgment of this Court in Duroflex (P) Ltd. v. Technology Information, Forecasting & Assessment Council, 2007(4) KLT 165, the expression 'court' in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act has to be understood in the light of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which event a FAO122/10 -: 3 :- court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or works would also be a court for the purpose of Section 34 of the Act. We also find support to this proposition by the views expressed by the Apex Court in Khaleel Ahmed Dakhani v. Hatti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 755. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and issue the following directions: a. The court below will take back the application of the petitioners-appellants filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 treating that the court below has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter and will proceed with it, including by deciding on the issue of limitation and all such objections as may be raised. b. The parties will appear before the court below on 22.9.2010. FAO122/10 -: 4 :- c. We clarify that we have decided only on the issue of territorial jurisdiction and all other issues are left open. d. We further clarify that though arguments were addressed before us on the sustainability of the arbitration agreement, we do not mention anything about it because the sustainability of the arbitration agreement is one of the grounds enumerated under Section 34 for consideration in that application. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/2808