IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arbitration Case No.71 of 2003. Date of decision : 16.06.2008 Dr.Bebangshu Dam …Objector Versus M/s.East West Rescue Pvt.Ltd & Anr. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Objector: Mr.Vijay Pandit, Advocate. For the respondents: M/s.A.P.S. Ahluwalia and Neeraj Gupta, Advocates. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award of the Arbitrator challenging it on various grounds. The award has been assailed on various grounds, however, without going into the merits of the dispute the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the matter is being considered. The other issues as framed on 3.9.2004 do not require 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 determination as prima facie, I am satisfied that the parties having chosen a Forum, cannot now be allowed to turn around and say that this condition is not binding upon them. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn my attention to the Service Rules which governed the conditions of service of the petitioner. In particular, he has referred to clause-6 of the Agreement which reads:- “06. Courts at Delhi shall have the jurisdiction for adjudication of all disputes between the Employer and the employees.” A number of grounds were taken by the petitioner to urge that this Court can exercise jurisdiction in this matter. I am not inclined to go into this submission as there is nothing on the record to show that the Service Rules were not accepted by the petitioner at the time of his employment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jatinder Nath vs. Chopra Land Developers Pvt.Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2007 SC 1401, holding therein that in case of an agreement between the parties where two Courts have jurisdiction to try a dispute then the one chosen by the parties should adjudicate the matter provided that it is not a case where otherwise the 3 Court would have no jurisdiction. Learned counsel also draws my attention to another judgment of the Supreme Court in New Moga Transport Company Through its Proprietor Krishanlal Jhanwar vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2004)4 SCC 677, holding:- “14. By a long series of decisions it has been held that where two Courts or more have under the CPC jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in any one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy and in no way contravenes Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, if on the facts of a given case more than one Court has jurisdiction, parties by their consent may limit the jurisdiction to one of the two Courts. But by an agreement parties cannot confer jurisdiction to a Court which otherwise does not have jurisdiction to deal with a matter (See: Hakam singh v. M/s.Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740; and M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd., v. Rama Mishra, AIR 2002 SC 2402.” In this case, on the facts pleaded that is, that the petitioner was employed at Delhi, the 4 Head Office of the Company is in Delhi, his service conditions etc. are regulated from that place, all salary etc. was paid to him at Delhi only, I am satisfied that the clause agreed to between the parties that Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to try the matter, cannot be said to be of a nature which confers jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise does not have the same. In this view of the matter, I hold that the present petition is not maintainable at Shimla in Himachal Pradesh only for the reason that the parties have agreed that the disputes between them be resolved at Delhi. This is not to say that a part of the cause of action has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as rightly urged by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. A direction is issued that : (a) The original petition / records of the case be returned to the petitioner for presentation in a Court of competent jurisdiction. For this purpose, notice shall be issued to the petitioner by the Registrar. (b) Needless to say that the time spent by the petitioner before this Court shall be excluded for the purposes 5 of limitation when the petition is filed before any other Court. (c) The record of the arbitration proceedings be returned to the learned Arbitrator. There shall be no order as to costs. All the miscellaneous applications are dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. June 16, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.