IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.2 of 2010 M/S Speedcrafts Ltd., a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, having its registered office at Layak Bhwan, Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001, through its Director(Works), S.S. Khadria son of Late P.R.Khadria, R/o Layak Bhawan, East Boring Canal Road, P.S.-Buddha Colony, District-Patna. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union Of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager (Engineering), Northern Railway, Head Quarters Officer, Baroda House, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Engineer, Northern Railway, Baroda house, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Maintenance, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. ….. Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 7. 03.12.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as the respondents have failed to adhere to Clause 13 of the Contract Agreement dated 15.07.2003 (Annexure-1) as modified in the pre-bid conference with mutual consent and have further refused to resort for arbitration vide their letter dated 25.07.2008. 3. There is an agreement between the parties for performing of work of Welding 60Kg/52 Kg. 90 UPS rails in 20 rails panels in FBWP Meerut with firm’s own Mobile Flash Butt Welding Plant for 50,000 joints including cleaning, grinding and finishing, transporting loose rails (13m/26m length) to welding site (average lead not exceeding 500 - 2 - meters), deploying and maintaining grinding machine etc.. The said agreement was entered into on 15.07.2003 and the work was to be completed by 6.11.2006. Further more, a provision of arbitration was also provided in the said agreement as Clause No. 3200. It also transpires that there is a dispute between the parties with respect to the payment of service tax which was levied after the said contract was entered into by the parties and with respect to this dispute the petitioner sent letter to the respondents on 11.04.2008 (Annexure-7) for appointment of arbitrator but the respondents refused vide their letter dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure-10) claiming that the service tax was not the subject matter of the contract. 4. It is admitted fact that Clause 3103 of the agreement in question clearly provides that the courts of the place from where the acceptance of tender has been issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract. It is also apparent that letter of acceptance dated 17.06.2003 (Annexure-1 series at page 11) was issued by the respondents from its headquarters office at Baroda House, New Delhi. In the said circumstances only Courts of place from where the said letter of acceptance had been issued, have the jurisdiction to decide such a dispute and this jurisdiction does not lie with this court. 5. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this case to file it before the appropriate court of the place from where the letter - 3 - of acceptance has been issued. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, but the petitioner must approach the appropriate court without any delay. Sujit (S.N. Hussain, J.)