AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—The Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. has filed the instant petition u/s 24 read with Section 151 CPC with the prayer for transfer of the objection petition filed by the respondent u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity ''the 1996 Act'') pending in the Court of district Judge, Chandigarh on the ground that the petitioner-corporation had already filed objections against the same award dated 31.10.2002.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Corporation had issued a tender for construction of a tourist complex known as Ethnic India Tourist Complex, Rai (Sonipat). The tender was accepted alongwith subsequent undertakings filed by the respondent-contractor. An agreement was entered into on 23.8.1994 between the parties. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 168.00 lacs and there was a condition for completion of work within the period of 20 months. Some dispute arose which led to the allegations that the work was not completed within the stipulated period of 20 months. The petitioner-Corporation issued notice to the respondent-contractor which eventually resulted into imposition of penalty to the extent of ten percent of the estimated amount of work by invoking Clause 2 of the contract agreement. The respondent-contractor sought arbitration and Managing Director of the petitioner corporation appointed Shri K.B.Lal Singhal retired Chief Engineer as Arbitrator u/s 25-A(12) of the agreement. The Arbitrator announced his award on 31.10.2002.
The petitioner-corporation filed object petition (Annexure P.1) u/s 34 of the 1996 Act in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh on 28.1.2003. Notice of the same was issued to the respondents. Similarly objections dated 29.1.2003 have been filed by the respondent-contractor u/s 34 of the Act before the District Judge, Sonipat.
Shri Sushil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation has argued that the objection filed by the petitioner-corporation are prior in time having been filed on 28.1.2003 than the objection filed by the respondent-contractor which were filed on 29.1.2003, the objection petition filed by the respondent-contractor is liable to be transferred to the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. He has also pointed out that the Head Office of the petitioner-corporation at Chandigarh and the arbitration proceeding were undertaken by the Arbitrator at Panchkula. The learned counsel has also submitted that it would be in the fitness of things that the objection petition of the respondent-contractor is transferred to District Judge, Chandigarh. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs. Chemical Construction Company and Others, and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement, 2004(2) PLR 290.
Shri Rajinder Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-contractor has pointed out that there is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court and both the cases should be consolidated and decided at one place in order to avoid conflicting judgment and views. The learned counsel has further submitted that work under contract agreement dated 23.8.1994 was executed within the local jurisdiction of the Courts at Sonepat where the objection petition has been filed. He has maintained that the account books and the large umber of witnesses would be available It Sonepat. Therefore, he has insisted that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner-corporation at Chandigarh be transferred to the District Judge, Sonipat.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the prayer made in this petition does not merit acceptance in its totality. It is well settled that when proceedings with regard to the same matters have been initiated by the parties at two places or more than two places then it is always proper to consolidate the proceedings at one place because it would avoid the possibility of an conflicting view. The Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.''s case (supra) has taken the, aforementioned view. While illustrating the above principle, their Lordships observed in para 18 as under:
Although the exercise of the discretionary power cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of any cast iron formula uniformity applicable to all situations. Yet, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer can be deduced from judicial decisions. One of them is that where two suits raising common questions of facts and law between parties common to both the suits, are pending in two different courts, it is generally in the interest of justice to transfer one of those suits to the other forum to be tried by the same court with consequent avoidance of multiplicity in the trial of the same issues and the risk of conflicting decision thereon. The instant case falls squarely within this category.
Similar view has also been taken in the case of M/s Chitivalasa Jute Mills (supra).
In view of the above, the prayer made by the petitioner-corporation is accepted to the extend that the proceedings in both the cases be held at one place in order to avoid any possibility of conflicting judgments. However, it would be more appropriate if the District Judge, Sonepat hears both the cases because the subject matter of the contract agreement dated 23.8.1994 is at Rai within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Sonipat and the witnesses are likely to be from that area. The District Judge, Chandigarh is directed to immediately send the case file titled as "Haryaria Tourism Corporation v. M/s Lord Shiva Construction Co. and another" to the District Judge, Sonipat where the objection filed by the respondent-corporation shall also be considered.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Sonipat on 10.8.2004.