CR No.5823 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5823 of 2010 Date of Decision : 10.09.2010 National Fertilizers Ltd. & another ... Petitioners Versus M/s Super Trading Corporation ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to the respondent. Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bathinda on 16.08.2010 (Annexure P-9) whereby the objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed. The respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioners for lifting of 10,000 MT carbon slurry from its Bathinda Unit vide Letter of intent dated 29.11.2004. The dispute arose in respect of lifting of such carbon slurry, which was referred to a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator has given his award on 17.09.2007 on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement. As per the settlement, the petitioner agreed to supply 2400 MT carbon slurry. Thereafter, on communication from the respondent to lift 1500 MT carbon slurry extendable to 2400 MT carbon slurry from its Nangal Unit, the petitioner permitted the respondent to lift 1500 MT carbon slurry . The respondent lifted 1500 MT carbon slurry from the Nangal Unit. The dispute is in respect of remaining 900 MT carbon slurry. As per the CR No.5823 of 2010 -2- petitioner, the said amount of carbon slurry cannot be claimed by the respondent whereas on behalf of the respondent it is pointed out that said carbon slurry is bound to be provided by the petitioner. The petitioner has issued a Letter of Intent for lifting of 1500 Mt carbon slurry out of 2400 MT carbon slurry from its Nangal Unit. In respect of the balance 900 MT carbon slurry, the respondent approached the Executing Court for implementation of the Memorandum of Settlement make part of arbitration award whereby the petitioner agreed to supply 2400 MT carbon slurry. Before the Executing Court, one of the objections raised by the petitioner was in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the Bathinda Court. The court by detailed reason did not find any merit in such argument and held that the Bathinda Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution of the award at Bathinda as the part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bathinda Court. The reasoning given by the Executing Court cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, warranting interference in revision jurisdiction of this suit. The dispute between the parties is limited in respect of supply of balance 900 MT carbon slurry. As per the petitioner, carbon slurry has to be lifted by the respondent from its Nangal Unit whereas learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no carbon slurry at Nangal Unit and therefore, the petitioner has to supply such quantity of carbon slurry from the Bathinda Unit. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The arbitration award is in respect of 2400 MT of carbon slurry. The petitioner has undertaken to supply such quantity. The agreement between the parties was to supply 10000 MT carbon slurry from the Bathinda Unit of the petitioner. CR No.5823 of 2010 -3- Therefore, the balance quantity of 2400 MT is to be supplied by the petitioner from the Bathinda Unit alone. When the respondent agreed for lifting 1500 MT carbon slurry from the Nangal Unit of the petitioner, it was by way of an arrangement arrived at by mutual consent. The petitioner has issued Letter of Intent for lifting only 1500 MT carbon slurry by the respondent from Nangal Unit. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to supply remaining 900 MT carbon slurry from its Bathinda Unit in terms of its original agreement i.e. Letter of Intent dated 29.11.2004 and affirmed by the arbitration award dated 17.09.2007. In view of the said facts, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 16.08.2010, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 10.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) sonia JUDGE