Amit Kumar Mukherjee v. Earth Infrastuctures Ltd. (Through Its Directors)

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3.

+ ARB.P. 680/2015 AMIT KUMAR MUKHERJEE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Parmar, Mr. Sunil Kumar Advocates.

versus EARTH INFRASTUCTURES LTD. (THROUGH: ITS DIRECTORS) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Advocate with Mr.Kshitij Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Anshul Mittal Ms. Vaishali Mittal, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

O R D E R

% 18.10.2016

1. The arbitration clause in the present case reads as under: "All or any disputes arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms of this Application Form (subsequent allotment of unit) including the interpretation and validity of the terms thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the parties shall be referred first to the consumer redressal forum of the CREDAI (NCR). The said allotment is subject to arbitration by the designated committee of arbitrators appointed by the CREDAI and the decision of the Arbitrator will be final and binding on all the parties failing which the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Company. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, and/or any statutory amendments/modifications thereof for the time being in force. The arbitration proceedings shall be held at an appropriate location in Delhi/New Delhi. Subject to Arbitration as referred Arb.P. No. 680/2015 Page 1 of 3

above, the High Court of Allahabad and the Courts subordinate to it alone shall have jurisdiction in case of any dispute."

2. Learned counsel for the Respondent points out that the Petitioner has not exhausted the procedure envisaged in the above clause, whereby, the disputes are to be first referred to the consumer redressal forum of the CREDAI (NCR) and only thereafter the aggrieved party can seek arbitration. Secondly, it is pointed out that it has been agreed that it would be the High Court of Allahabad and the courts subordinate to it which would exclusively would have jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the Respondent further states that the Respondent has indicated in its reply dated 3rd November 2015, that it would be appointing Mr. Bhanu Kathpalia, Advocate, as sole Arbitrator.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, states that the Respondent has its registered office in Delhi, although the Petitioner is a resident of Noida, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The flat in question was to be constructed in Greater Noida and therefore the clause in question expressed the intention of the parties to confer the jurisdiction exclusively on the High Court of Allahabad and the Courts subordinate to it, to the exclusion of the other Courts. Such a clause cannot be considered to be invalid since part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court.

5. In that view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. However, it is made clear that the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondent, if he has not already done do, should now proceed in the Arb.P. No. 680/2015 Page 2 of 3

matter, in accordance with law.

6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. S. MURALIDHAR, J OCTOBER 18, 2016 mg Arb.P. No. 680/2015 Page 3 of 3