THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO DATED: 20-10-2011 CCCA Nos. 257, 258 AND 259 OF 2006; 95 AND 96 OF 2007 CCCA No. 257 OF 2006 Between: M/s. Meghana Vision Proprietary Concern, Office at Flat No. 405, Major Residency, Opp: Police Officers Mess, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, rep., by Proprietor B.V. Rama Narsimha Reddy and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Hathway Cable & Datacom Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Rahejas, 4th Floor, Main Avenue, Santacruz (W) Mumbai-54, and branch office at Flat No. 603 & 4, 6th Floor, Mahavir Chambers, Liberty Cross Roads, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 29 .....RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CCCA Nos. 257, 258 AND 259 OF 2006; 95 AND 96 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Sri A.Gopal Reddy, J) Since the issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment. CCCA Nos. 257, 258 and 259 of 2006 are filed against the judgment and decree dated 14-07-2006 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A Nos. 2529, 2526 and 2527 of 2005 in O.S Nos. 163, 161 and 162 of 2005 respectively. CCCA Nos. 95 and 96 of 2007 are filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-01-2007 passed by the learned XI Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A Nos. 818 and 819 of 2006 in O.S Nos. 513 and 514 of 2005 respectively. By the impugned orders, the I.As filed by the respondent – defendant were allowed accepting its plea that the Civil Court at Hyderabad will not have jurisdiction in view of arbitration clause contained in the agreements which envisages that all disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant can be adjudicated at Mumbai only and the plaints have to be returned to be presented in proper Court. The appellants – plaintiffs filed the said suits to declare clauses 5.5, 8 and 10 of the concerned agreements as invalid. The trial Court held that the suits as such are not maintainable in view of the fact that clause 8 of the agreements in the suits provides to resolve the disputes through arbitration and the Court at Hyderabad will not have jurisdiction in view of clause 14 of the agreements which confers the jurisdiction with Mumbai Courts. Pending the suits, the respondent – defendant filed Arbitration Application Nos.47, 3, 4, 2 and 1 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) under the agreements covered by O.S Nos.163, 161 and 162 of 2006 and O.S Nos.513 and 514 of 2006 respectively. The said applications have been rejected by the Bombay High Court holding that the applicant i.e., the defendant failed to show that the Courts at Mumbai will have jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit if it had been filed on the same cause of action and that he does not produce any material to show that the Courts at Mumbai will have jurisdiction to entertain civil suits. The applications as such filed for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act cannot be entertained and accordingly rejected the same. It was also observed that the Courts at Hyderabad will have jurisdiction to entertain the civil suits. Section 20 of CPC determines the jurisdiction of the Court where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Though the agreements are entered at Mumbai, in the averments made in the plaints, it is specifically pleaded that the cause of action for the suit arises within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Hyderabad and the subject matter of the suit contracts relate to cable network business being carried out at Hyderabad and the Courts at Hyderabad will have jurisdiction to try the suit. The Courts below have not gone into the said aspect and allowed the interlocutory applications only on the ground that the agreements provide for an arbitration and the proceedings in the arbitration have to be proceeded with only at Mumbai, therefore, the Courts at Hyderabad will not have jurisdiction. In view of dismissal of the applications filed by the defendant for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 (c) of the Act by the Bombay High Court, as they have become final and if the impugned orders are allowed to stand, the appellants will be deprived of the remedies available to them under law. Section 9 of CPC provides that the Courts shall try all civil suits unless barred. Since there is no bar to entertain the suits and the applications filed by the defendant to appoint arbitrator have already been rejected, the suits filed by the plaintiffs have to be proceeded with and disposed of by the lower Court on merits. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the lower Court allowing the I.As filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC and the consequential orders returning the plaints are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The lower Court is now directed to proceed with the suits from the stage where they are returned and the parties are also at liberty to avail the remedies including filing of applications under Section 8 of the Act for resolution of the disputes, if law permits. The CCCAs are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. A.GOPAL REDDY,J K.S.APPA RAO,J 20-10-2011 ks