IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 12834 of 2010(O) ------------------------------ [O.P.NO.41/2008 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.J.PRAKASH, K.J.CABLES,'KULATHIL, KAKKOOR KARA,NATTAKOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS(P)LTD., 3RD FLOOR,CENTRE PLAZA VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014,REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, EXCEL TOWER, STAR JUNCTION,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.12834/2010-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITIONER IN O.P (ARBITRATION) 41/2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.P.(ARB.) 41/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/11/2009 IN O.P. ARBITRATION 41/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/07/2006 IN O.P.(ARB.) 7/2006 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/07/2007 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD DTD. 29/04/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 25/11/1999. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.12834 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P3, order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kottayam on 06.11.2009 in O.P(Arb.) No.41 of 2006 is under challenge. Respondent obtained an arbitration award which petitioner challenged before the learned District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, “the Act”). Respondent filed Ext.P2, objection challenging jurisdiction of learned District Judge to entertain the petition under Sec.34 of the Act on the ground of ouster of jurisdiction by agreement of parties. Learned District Judge accepted that objection and directed by the impugned order that the Original Petition be returned for presentation in the court having jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the court at Thiruvananthapuram where the Petition is directed to be presented has no jurisdiction to entertain the same since no part of the cause of action has arisen at that place. In that situation it W.P(C) No.12834 of 2010 -: 2 :- was not within the right of the parties to agree and confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise had no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent would rely on clause 16 of the agreement (Ext.P7) to contend that the contract was entered into at Thiruvananthapuram and hence part of the cause of action has taken place at that place though the transaction took place at Kottayam. 3. Clause 16 of Ext.P7, agreement entered between the parties say that the parties agreed that courts at Thiruvananthapuram where the contract was executed alone shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute between parties to the agreement arising out of or consequent on the agreement. Learned counsel for petitioner has an argument that the said clause has no independent existence since it has merged in the award. But I am not persuaded to accept that contention. For, the parties have specifically agreed that the courts in Thiruvananthapuram where the contract was executed alone shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the parties to the agreement arising out of or consequent on this agreement. Filing of O.P(Arb.) No.41 of 2006 is in consequence of the W.P(C) No.12834 of 2010 -: 3 :- agreement in that, reference of the dispute to the arbitration and passing of the award are in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Therefore the filing of the Petition to set aside the award is something which is in consequence of the agreement. Clause 16 of Ext.P7 shows that the contract was entered into at Thiruvananthapuram. Hence part of the cause of action has arisen at that place. 4. It is settled position of law that when two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a matter it is within the right of parties to the contract to agree that among those courts one court alone will have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. Here the parties have agreed that the court at Thiruvananthapuram alone will have jurisdiction to decide the dispute between them, arising out of and consequent on the agreement. If that be so, learned Additional District Judge is justified in returning the Petition for presentation in the proper court. 5. Since the impugned order is dated 06.11.2009 and the time granted is 15 days from the date of the order which has W.P(C) No.12834 of 2010 -: 4 :- already run out, I am inclined to grant 15 days' time from the date on which a copy of this judgment is notified for delivery to the petitioner to present the petition before the proper court. With the above direction the Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv