Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6474 (JHR)

M/S HEALTH REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY GOURI SHANKAR MAHTO v. INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD.

A.APPL/45/2025 · 2026-04-10

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

(2026: JHHC: 10371) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 45 of 2025 M/s Health, a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its registered office at Ward No. 9, near Thana No. 1, Thana Road, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum (West), Jharkhand 833102 represented through its Secretary Gouri Shankar Mahto, aged about… S/o Late Lakhindra Mahto, R/o Thana Road, Ward No. 2, Purani Basti, P.O. Chakradharpur, P.S. Chakradharpur, Chakradharpur, Paschim Singhbhum, Jharkhand, 833102 ... Petitioner Versus Innovative Financial Advisors Pvt. Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956/2013, represented through its CEO, having its registered office at 24/30, Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, P.O. Okhla Industrial Area, P.S. Jamia Nagar, New Delhi 110020 ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Harshit Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms Manjusha Priya, Advocate Mr Pranav Kumar, Advocate --------- Order No. 05/Dated: 10.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that this application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be entertained by this Court. Under Clause 6.1, Parties have agreed that the Courts in New Delhi, India shall have the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters concerning this agreement. 3. Article 6 of the Agreement which contains the dispute resolution mechanism reads as follows:- DISPUTE RESOLUTION 6.1 Any controversy or dispute in connection with this agreement which cannot be amicably settled by the parties shall be decided by recourse to arbitration by a sole arbitrator, appointed by The CEO of (2026: JHHC: 10371) the First Party, which will be governed under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, with the place of Arbitration at New Delhi. In case of any dispute the parties shall be bound to give the other party a due notice of 30 days for invoking the provision under this clause i.e. for appointment of arbitrator. The Second Party hereby affirms and acknowledges the power and authority of The First Party to appoint the Sole Arbitrator, and withdraws any objections/ reservations to such effect. The arbitral award shall be final and binding on both parties. The courts at New Delhi, India shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters concerning this Agreement.” 4. The above referred Article indeed suggests that the parties have agreed that the Courts in New Delhi, India shall have the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters concerning this agreement. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant however, submits that the entire cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, this Court should entertain this application. 6. However, according to me, at least part of cause of action can certainly be said to have arisen in New Delhi. Besides, the respondent herein, has its registered office in New Delhi. 7. Therefore, this application is not entertained solely on the ground of territorial objection based on territorial jurisdiction. This means that the applicant will have the full liberty to file such application before the competent court in New Delhi. 8. All contentions of all parties are left open and this application is disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) April 10, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 13.04.2026