D. B. BHOSALE, J.:- In view of a divergence of the views in two judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court, the first being in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Sharad Shetkari Soot Girni Niyamit, 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 96: [2000(2) ALL MR 46] and the second in Omni Bus Industrial Development Corporation of Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli Ltd. Vs. M. N. Dhanani (Arbitration Appeal No.1 of 2000) decided on 17th December, 2002, a reference was made to the Honble the Chief Justice by another learned Single Judge in the appeal under Arbitration Act No.3 of 2004 (New Arbitration Appeal No.14 of 2005) by the order dated 23rd March, 2004 alongwith a request to refer the matter to a larger bench. This Full Bench has been, accordingly, constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. In Omni Bus Industrial Development Corporation, the learned Judge while dealing with the definition of "Court", under section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the "Act of 1996"), has taken a view that the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Goa being the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction, would be entitled to hear an appeal under section 34 of the Act of 1996, while in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., another learned Single Judge has taken a view that the District Judge of a District and not the Civil Judge, Senior Division, would be the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction. This view was taken with reference to the provisions of section 8 of the Act of 1996. It is against this backdrop we have formulated the following question of law that is required to be addressed by us in this judgment:

"Whether it is the Civil Judge. Senior Division or the District Court which should be construed as being the Principal Court of Original Jurisdiction for the purpose of a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."

3. We do not propose to make a reference to the factual matrix in detail and deal with the merits of each case, in this group of matters. However, it would be appropriate to state the background against which Arbitration Appeal No.14 of 2004 (i.e. Appeal under Arbitration Act No.3 of 2004) came to be filed in this Court. In this appeal the appellants had filed an application under section 9 of the Act of 1996 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, North Goa at Panaji. The First Additional District Judge had granted ad-interim relief in favour of the appellants and issued notice to the respondents. The respondents upon being served with a notice filed their reply, inter alia, objecting to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble District Judge in view of the judgment of this Court in Omni Bus Industrial Development Corporation. The learned Judge vide his judgment and order dated 9th March, 2004 upheld the objection and directed to return the application to the appellants for its presentation to an appropriate court having jurisdiction to entertain the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Court dated 9.3.2004 the appellants filed appeal before this Court in which the present reference was made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.3.2004. It appears that in view of the reference made by the learned Single Judge in Appeal under Arbitration Act No.3 of 2004, in other matters also similar orders were passed by the learned Single Judges and that is how this group has been placed before us for answering the reference.

4. We have heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties only on the aforesaid question formulated by us. Almost all the learned counsel appearing in all the matters except Mr. Deo, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents in Arbitration Appeal No.14 of 2005, addressed the Court in support of the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Cotton Corporation of India. The leading arguments were advanced by Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Revision Applicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document