http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S. EVDOMEN CORPORATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/02/1999

BENCH: Sujata V.  Manohar, R.C.Lahoti.

JUDGMENT:

Mrs.  Stljata V.  Manohar, J.

       Leave granted,

       The appellant-Food Corporation of India entered into a charter party agreement with the respondent for  transport of rice  from  Bangkok  to  Paradeep  Port  in  Orissa.  The charter party was signed at Delhi where the principal office of the appellant is situated, on 30.9.1988.

       Under the charter party agreement cargo was  brought and discharged  at Paradeep Port in the State of Orissa.  In respect of the cargo so discharged there were  disputes  and differences   between  the  parties  regarding  freight  and demurrage charges.    Since  the  charter  party   agreement contained  an  arbitration  clause; the parties referred the disputes to arbitration.   The  arbitration  took  place  in Bombay.   Arbitrators  gave  their award and filed it in the Bombay High Court.

       It is contended before us by the appellant that  the Bombay  High  Court had no jurisdiction to take the award on file or to issue any process in connection  with  it.    The High   Court  in  the  impugned  judgment,  has  upheld  the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court on the ground that the appellant who is in the position of a defendant, has one  of its places of business at Bombay.

       Under  Section  2(c)  of  the Arbitration Act, 1940. "Court" means a Civil Court having  jurisdiction  to  decide the questions forming the subject matter of the reference if the same  had  been  the  subject  matter  of a suit.  Under Section 31(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 an award  may  be filed  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates.

       Ordinarily,   the   phrase   "Civil   Court   having jurisdiction  to  decide" in Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 would refer to a court having  jurisdiction  under Section 20  of  the  Civil Procedure Code.  Section 20(a) of the  Civil  Procedure  Code  provides,   "Subject   to   the limitations  aforesaid,  every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a)  the defendant  or  each  of  the defendants where there are more than one, at the time  of  the  commencement  of  the  suit,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

actually  and  voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain....(c) the cause of action  wholly or in part arises." In the present case no part of the cause of  action  has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.  We have,  therefore,  to  see  whether  Section 20(a)  would confer jurisdiction on Bombay High Court as has been held in the impugned judgment.  Section 20(a) has to be read along with the explanation to Section 20 which provides as follows :-

               "Explanation:   A  Corporation  shall  be         deemed to carry on business at its sole or         principal office in India or in respect of         any cause of action arisen  at  any  place         where  it has also a subordinate office at         such place."

In  view  of this Explanation the appellant under Section 20 is deemed to carry on business at its  principal  office  in India.   In respect of any cause of action which arises at a place where it has its subordinate office, the court at that place would  also  have  jurisdiction.    In  view  of  this explanation,   the   Bombay   High   Court  would  not  have jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.

       In this connection our attention was also drawn to a decision of this Court in Hakam Singh v.  M/s Gammon (India) Ltd.  (1971 (3) SCR 314), where this  Court  said  that  the Code  of  Civil  Procedure  in  its  entirety  apples to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act by virtue  of  Section 41 of the Arbitration Act.  The jurisdiction of the court to entertain   a  proceeding  in  connection  with  arbitration including taking on file an award, is  accordingly  governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

       However,  under  Section  120 of the Civil Procedure Code, Sections 16.  17 and 20 of the Civil Procedure code do not apply to a High Court in the exercise  of  its  original civil jurisdiction.    Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain  a  suit  under  its  ordinary  original  civil jurisdiction  is  determined  by  Clause  12  of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court.  Under  Clause  12  of  the Letters  Patent  a place where the defendant, or each of the defendants  where  there  are  more   than   one,   at   the commencement of the suit, carry on business would be a place where the  court  would have jurisdiction.  Therefore, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the  Bombay  High  Court, the  Bombay  High  Court  would  have  jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute in the  present  case  because the appellant does carry on business in Bombay.

       In the present case the Arbitrators gave their award on 29,11.1994.    The  appellant  received a notice from the Arbitrators of the  signing  of  the  award  on  15.12.1994. Thereafter  on  13i1.1995  the  appellant  filed Arbitration Misc.  Case No.  13 of 1895 before the Civil  Judge,  Senior Division,   Jagatsinghpur,   under   Section  14(2)  of  the Arbitration Act, 1940 for directing the Arbitrators to  file the  original award and all relevant records in court and to permit the appellant to file objections under Section 30  of the Arbitration   Act  against  the  said  award.    In  the meanwhile  on  1,2.1995  the  award  was  filed  in  Bombay. Thereafter the appellant amended the application in Case No. 13/95  to  ask for transfer of the award from Bombay to the. court at Jagatsinghpur, Application being Misc.  Case  13/95

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

was rejected by the Court at Jagatsinghpur.  It directed the appellant to  file its objections in Bombay.  We do not know whether anything further is pending in connection with  that application.   The appellant did not rely upon Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act either before the Bombay  High  Court or before  us.   The above facts were known to the appellant and were brought to the notice of the High Court.   Perhaps, looking to the findings of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jagatsinghpur,  regarding  lack of jurisdiction in his court to decide claims for demurrage etc., Section 31(4)  has  not been pressed into service.

       We, therefore, do not find it necessary to set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court.

       The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.