SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. versus PRAVEEN BHATIA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 353 
SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
PRAVEEN BHATIA & ORS. 
(Transfer Petition (C) No. 61 of 2007) 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
B 
Article 32 - Writ petition seeking transfer of arbitration c 
cases and other suits - Under an agreement between parties, 
jurisdiction conferred on court at Jhansi (U.P.) - Different 
arbitrators appointed by parties - Awards - Suits filed in 
Jhansi (U.P.) as also in Ludhiana (Punjab) - Petition under 
Article 32 seeking transfer of cases converted into transfer 0 
petition - Held: Parties are governed by terms of contract 
which conferred jurisdiction on courts, the same should 
ordinarily be given effect to - Transfer petition allowed -
Cases directed to be transferred to District Judge, Jhansi who 
in turn would transfer the same to appropriate courts -
E 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 9 and 34. 
The petitioner, a manufacturer of ayurvedic 
medicines, entered into an agreement with a firm, 
respondent No.5, the other respondents being its 
partners, for the purpose of distribution of its product. 
F 
The agreement contained an arbitration clause stating that 
the jurisdiction of the court to determine the dispute 
between the parties would be at Jhansi (U.P.). Disputes 
arose between the parties, and the petitioner appointed 
an arbitrator. Though the respondents appeared before G 
the said arbitrator and filed copies of pleadings, 
subsequently they absented. They were stated to have 
appointed a different arbitrator who gave an award 
against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition u/s. 
353 
H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the 
Court of District Judge, Jhansi to set aside the said 
award. The respondent firm filed 5 applications uls. 9 of 
the Act in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana. During 
the period 2006-2008, 14 civil suits were filed by petitioner 
B 
in different courts. The petitioner filed a writ petition 
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer 
for grant of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate 
writ transferring the cases mentioned in Annexure-1 to 
court of Jhansi. The said writ petition was permitted to 
)r 
c be converted into the transfer petition. 
Allowing the transfer petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The parties are governed by the terms of 
the contract. If, in terms of the provisions of the contract, 
D 
they by agreement conferred jurisdiction on one of the 
courts which would have otherwise jurisdiction to deal 
• 
with the matter, the same should ordinarily be given 
.-
effect to. [Para 13] [361-C-D] 
E 
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem 
(1989) 2 SCC 163; Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters 
(P) Ltd. (2004) 4 SCC 671 and Rajasthan State Electricity 
Board v. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd. (2009) 3 SCC 107, 
~ .. 
referred to 
F 
1.2. It is not in dispute that two awards have been 
made by two different arbitrators. Objections to the said 
awards have been filed by both the parties. One of the 
questions which, thus, is required to be taken into 
consideration is as to whether the appointment of 
G respective arbitrators by the parties was valid and, thus, 
__. • 
whether the arbitrators had acted within the four corners 
of the arbitration agreement. [Para 14] [362-E-G] 
1.3. The cases mentioned in Annexure-1 to the 
H 
I 
SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. 355 
""' 
v. PRAVEEN BHATIA & ORS. 
Transfer Petition are directed to be transferred to Jhansi. A 
It is true that respondent No.6 is not a party to the 
arbitration agreement but he is claiming interest under the 
firm which had appointed him as its distributor pursuant 
to such an authority having been conferred upon the 
firm by the company. Therefore, his case also should be 
B 
transferred. The court concerned should send the 
records of the respective cases to the District Judge, 
Jhansi who shall in turn transfer them to the courts 
~ 
having appropriate jurisdiction. [Para 15 and 16] [362-G-
H; 363-A-B] 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
(1989) 2 sec 163 
referred to 
para 13 
(2004) 4 sec 671 
referred to 
para 13 
D 
~ 
(2009) 3 sec 107 
referred to 
para 13 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil) 
Nos. 61 of 2007. 
Under Section 25 of The Code of Civil Procedure. 
E 
Sunil Gupta, T.S. Doabia, Rishi Maheshwari, Shally Bhasin 
" 
Mahesw

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.