Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010009262013 2025:GAU-AS:873 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/274/2013 MAHINDRA and MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GATEWAY BUILDING, APOLLO BUNDER, MUMBAI - 400001, WITH ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT THAKURBARI ROAD, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. REP. BY ITS ASSOCIATE MANAGER- LEGAL - SRI BHOLA NATH SHARMA. VERSUS UTPAL BORA and ANR. S/O- SRI KAMALESWAR SATOLA, R/O- WARD NO. 3, BIHPURIA TOWN, P.S., P.O. and MOUZA- BIHPURIA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, PIN- 784161. 2:MANOJ BHUYAN S/O- SRI NANDESWAR BHUYAN VILL.- KAMARBARI GAON P.O.- PANBARI P.S.- BIHPURIA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 784161 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.D. Sarma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Page No.# 2/3 Date : 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. N.D. Sarma the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. P. Bhattacharjee appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 25.04.2013 passed in Money Execution Case No. 10/2012 whereby the application seeking execution of the arbitral award was rejected on the ground that the arbitral award which is a decree have not been transmitted in terms with Section 37 read with Order XXI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that the arbitral award was passed at Mumbai. Further to that, it is also relevant to take note of Clause 27 of the Agreement entered into by and between the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 wherein the jurisdictional Clause has been mentioned. The said clause being relevant is reproduced herein under: “27) Jurisdiction It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Courts at Mumbai alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any matter, claims or dispute arising out of or in any way relating to these presents or to anything to be done under and pursuant to these presents or of any clause or provision thereof, notwithstanding that the whole or substantial part of the cause of action may not have arisen at Mumbai.” 4. From the said clause it is seen that the Courts in Mumbai alone shall have the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Under such circumstances, upon passing of the arbitral award, the petitioner herein ought to have applied for execution Page No.# 3/3 of the award before the Competent Courts at Mumbai. However, the petitioner had filed an application for execution before the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, which was registered as Money Execution Case No. 10/2012. The learned Court had therefore rejected the said application. 5. This Court finds no infirmity in the said order dated 25.04.2013 and as such, is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in the instant proceedings. 6. Be that as it may, the period from 25.07.2013 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation, if the petitioner files appropriate application before the Courts of Mumbai. 7. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant