IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 319 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.605/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------ M/S.SPOT MARKETS, A FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIA PARTNERSHIP ACT 1032 AND CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT T.C.NO.13/386, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. BY ADVS. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA MR.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM MR.K.L.VARGHESE MR.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA SMT.PUSHPY B.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): REVN.PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS --------------------------- 1. OTC EXCHANGE OF INDIA, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 92-93, MAKER TOWER, 'F' CUFFE PARADE, BOMBAY-400005. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, OTC EXCHANGE OF INDIA, 92-93, MAKER TOWER, 'F' CUFFE PARADE, BOMBAY-400005. BY ADV. MR.R.S.KALKURA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- R.P.NO.319 OF 2009 IN C.R.P.NO.605 OF 2005 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 O R D E R Review Petitioner is the respondent in the C.R.P. and the plaintiff in the suit. C.R.P. was heard in detail and order was passed on 27th January, 2009 allowing the revision petition. This Court held that a reading of Clause 14 makes it very clear that unless and otherwise agree, the venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be Bombay and the parties shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in Bombay. It is also observed that when the parties agreed to abide by the order of the civil court in Bombay having jurisdiction, later they cannot approach a different court. The contention of the review petitioner (respondent in CRP) that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers jurisdiction on all civil courts to entertain the suit, was repelled by this Court, holding that the -2- R.P.No.319/2009 said contentions are unsustainable in law. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that Clause 14 of the agreement states that the parties shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts in Bombay conferring jurisdiction of Bombay Courts only in respect of court proceedings relating to arbitration or to give effect to arbitration. Secondly, it is contended that the defendants have not applied “not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute” as envisaged in Section 8 of the said Arbitration and Conciliation Act, defendants' right to challenge the suit and compel the plaintiff to resort to arbitration has been waived and as such suit shall continue. 3. The first contention that the courts in Bombay having jurisdiction only in respect of court proceedings relating to arbitration or to give effect to arbitration, I am of the view, is not sustainable. The meaning of the words “Unless otherwise agree to, the venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be in -3- R.P.No.319/2009 Bombay and the parties shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts in Bombay”, it reads that venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be in Bombay and the courts in Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute or differences which may arise in relation to the agreement. The 2nd question raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner does not arise for consideration, in view of the finding on the first question. The finding on the question of jurisdiction alone is under challenge. Review Petition is devoid of any merit and hence it is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.