IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23349 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAHARAJA, PROPRIETOR, M/S.JYOTHI INDUSTRIES, HSE. 559, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM-691 021. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUMTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. M/S.DHAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED(UNIT NO.2), PLOT NO.3,5,7, BHAGIRATHPURA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, INDORE (M.P.).452 003 2. M.P.MICRO & SMALL INDUSTRY FACILITATION COUNCIL, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 23349/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED NIL FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31/12/2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 23349 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ------------------------ The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3, the Arbitration Award passed by M.P. Micro & Small Industry Facilitation Council, Madhyapradesh constituted under chapter 5 of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as per notification no. F.6-12/98/A-X1,dated 10.01.2007 of M.P.Government. 2. By Ext.P3 award, the petitioner has been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1,37,448 and interest, as provided there in. Although various contentions on the merits of the controversies have been raised, the preliminary objection raised by the first respondent which was the applicant before the council, is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the respondents to entertain this writ petition. It is contended that the award has been rendered WP (C) No. 23349 of 2010 2 by the 2nd respondent situated at Madhya Pradesh and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Award. 3. It is true that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the first respondent or the 2nd respondent and in that view of the matter, the situs of the respondents being beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. 4. However, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is residing and doing business at Kollam, that the supply of the materials was effected in Kerala, that the payment was made at Kerala and therefore the 1st respondent ought to have chosen the forum in Kerala to redress their grievances. In my view, if the 2nd respondent also had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, it was open to the 1st respondent to have moved that forum. That apart if the petitioner had any such contention, they ought to have raised it before the 2nd respondent itself and the award does not show that it was WP (C) No. 23349 of 2010 3 raised. Therefore this contention has no force and cannot be accepted. In my view, this WP(C) has to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction itself and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. rkc