>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Jingong Company v. Guangfa Company (Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)
锦宫公司与广发公司商品房买卖合同纠纷管辖权异议案
【法宝引证码】

Jingong Company v. Guangfa Company (Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)
(Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)
锦宫公司与广发公司商品房买卖合同纠纷管辖权异议案

Jingong Company v. Guangfa Company
(Case of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Dispute of Real Estate Sales Contract)@#

@#

@#

Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court@#
Final Civil Ruling No. 11 [2006] of the First Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Defendant of the Original Trial): Jingdezheng Jingong Industry Co., Ltd., situated at 4/F, Xinyue Plaza, Zhushan Middle Road, Jingdezheng City, Jiangxi Province.@#
Legal Representative: Jiang Xinyue, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
Authorized Agent: Chen Yaoquan, attorney-at-law of Beijing T&T Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Plaintiff of the Original Trial): Jingdezheng Guangfa Properties Co., Ltd., situated at 4/F, Building B, No. 473, Zhonghua South Road, Jingdezhen City, Jiangxi Province.@#
Legal Representative: Xiang Genji, general manager of this company.@#
Authorized Agent: Sun Lanying, employee of this company.@#
Authorized Agent: Lan Weidong, attorney-at-law of QZ & WD(Jiangxi)Law Firm.@#
As to the case of dispute over the real estate sales contract between Jingdezheng Jingong Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jingong Company) and Jingdezheng Guangfa Properties Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangfa Company), the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province rendered the Civil Ruling No. 9 [2005] of the First Civil Division of the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province on December 9, 2005 and rejected the objection to jurisdiction put forward by Jingong Company. Jingong Company was not satisfied with the said ruling and filed an appeal to this court. This court formed a collegial bench after acceptance of this case, and organized both parties for inquiry on February 20, 2006. Chen Yaoquan, Sun Lanying and Lan Weidong participated in the inquiry. Now the trial of this case has been completed.@#
Upon trial, the court of the first instance found that: Jingong Company put forward its objection to jurisdiction during the course of defense, and on November 11, 2005, the court of the first instance convened Jingong Company and Guangfa Company and held a hearing for the objection to jurisdiction put forward by Jingong Company.@#
......

 

锦宫公司与广发公司商品房买卖合同纠纷管辖权异议案@#
【裁判摘要】  @#
根据仲裁法十八条的规定,仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的,当事人可以补充协议;达不成补充协议的,仲裁协议无效。根据最高人民法院《关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复》第一条的规定,在仲裁法实施后重新组建仲裁机构前,当事人达成的仲裁协议只约定了仲裁地点,未约定仲裁机构的,双方当事人在补充协议中选定了在该地点依法重新组建的仲裁机构的,仲裁协议有效;双方当事人达不成补充协议的,仲裁协议无效。依照上述规定认定仲裁协议无效的,当事人向有管辖权的人民法院提起诉讼,人民法院应当受理。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事裁定书@#
(2006)民一终字第11号@#
@#
上诉人(原审被告):景德镇市锦宫实业有限公司,住所地江西省景德镇市珠山中路新跃大厦4楼。@#
法定代表人:江新跃,该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人:陈耀权,北京市天同律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审原告):景德镇广发置业有限公司,住所地江西省景德镇市中华南路473号B栋4楼。@#
法定代表人:项根基,该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人:孙兰英,该公司职工。@#
委托代理人:兰卫东,江西求正沃德律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人景德镇市锦宫实业有限公司 (以下简称锦宫公司)与被上诉人景德镇广发置业有限公司(以下简称广发公司)商品房买卖合同纠纷一案,江西省高级人民法院于2005年12月9日作出(2005)赣民一初字第9号民事裁定驳回了锦宫公司提出的管辖权异议。锦宫公司不服该裁定,向本院提起上诉。本院受理后依法组成合议庭,于2006年2月20日组织双方当事人进行了询问。锦宫公司的委托代理人陈耀权,广发公司的委托代理人孙兰英、兰卫东参加了询问。本案现已审理终结。@#
一审法院经审理查明:锦宫公司在答辩期内提出管辖权异议,一审法院于2005年11月11日召集锦宫公司、广发公司双方对锦宫公司提出的管辖异议事由进行了听证。@#
锦宫公司提出管辖权异议认为,1.从受案范围看,该纠纷不归人民法院主管。双方当事人在2004年3月7日、9月7日签订的《补充协议》中已达成协议选择当地仲裁机构仲裁,根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第五条规定,本案不应由人民法院管辖。根据江西省人民政府府厅字[1995]135号《关于组建景德镇仲裁委员会的函》 (1995年10月16日),本案应由景德镇仲裁委员会受理。 2.违反地域管辖的规定。申请人是中外合资企业,根据相关司法解释规定,本案一审由省会城市所在地即南昌市中级人民法院受理。《最高人民法院关于当事人对仲裁协议的效力提出异议由哪一级人民法院管辖问题的批复》规定,当事人对仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明的,由被告所在地的中级人民法院管辖,即使由人民法院主管,也应由景德镇市中级人民法院管辖。 3.级别管辖存在问题。据业内人士反映,江西省高级人民法院受理一审民事案件的诉讼标的起点在5000万元以上,而本案标的只有约3000万元,按人民法院内部级别管辖的规定,也应由景德镇市中级人民法院管辖。因此,本案要么由景德镇仲裁委员会管辖,要么由有管辖权的中级人民法院管辖。@#
广发公司答辩称,双方当事人之间的协议有五份,其中只有两份协议包含仲裁条款,且仲裁条款均存在仲裁机构约定不明的情况,其他三份协议并未约定仲裁条款,因此人民法院对本案仍有管辖权。另外,依据《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》(法释 [2000]3号)所附的内地仲裁委员会名单,截止1999年5月31日,内地依照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》成立的仲裁委员会在江西省的只有南昌、新余、萍乡三地。由此可见,所谓景德镇仲裁委员会的合法性可以排除。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥500.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese