Case: B.E. Simoes Von Staraburg Niedenthal &amp; Another Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh Investment Ltd

2. Admittedly, a Raising Agreement with regard to mines located in Goa was entered between the parties at Raipur on 09.04.2007. The first appellant operates mines in Goa. Under the Raising Agreement, the respondent is exclusive purchaser of the ore from the mines of the appellants. The disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "CIL") made an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 1996 Act) for interim protection before the Court of District Judge, Raipur. The present appellants (hereinafter referred to as "SIMOES"), who were respondents in the application, raised the objection, by way of an application, about the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Raipur. It was submitted by the SIMOES that the District Judge, Raipur has no jurisdiction for three reasons: (i) the subject mines are located in Goa, (ii) the agreement was also made in Goa, and (iii) the place of residence of respondent No. 2 is Goa. CIL, on the other hand, responded to the SIMOES objection by stating that although the subject mines are situated in Goa, the working of the company is in Raipur, the cause of action also arose in Raipur and, therefore, the District Judge, Raipur also has jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter.3. The District Judge, Raipur elaborately noted the arguments of the parties, but curiously first observed that it would be possible to decide the issue of jurisdiction only when SIMOES filed reply to the petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act and then dismissed the application whereby SIMOES raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction.4. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, SIMOES preferred appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court did not interfere with the order of the District Judge, Raipur and observed that the question of jurisdiction could only be decided by the District Judge after the reply was filed to the application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The High Court observed that the District Judge shall decide the application under Section 9 and so also the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction afresh within thirty days from the date of the filing of reply and after hearing the parties.

Court's reasoning:
11. In light of the legal position exposited in Swastik Gases Private Limited and Associated Contractors (supra) and having regard to Clause 13 of the agreement, as noted above, the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Raipur is ousted and, therefore, he cannot be said to have any jurisdiction in dealing with the matter. The only competent court of jurisdiction is the court at Goa.12. In what we have discussed above, we do not think that it is necessary to send the matter back to the District Judge, Raipur for determination of the jurisdiction as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. In our view, relegating the parties to the District Judge, Raipur to determine the question of jurisdiction will be unnecessary and futile exercise.