IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the importance of pecuniary jurisdiction, the designation of the proper Court as per the arbitration clause, and the non-exclusivity of jurisdiction under the 1996 Act.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present application under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying, inter alia, for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the asset which was financed by way of a loan given by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner also seeks a restraint on the respondents from transferring or disposing of the said asset.

2. The respondents have taken a point of maintainability of the application on 3 grounds. The first of the grounds is that the application is barred under section 42 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The second objection is that the application is barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which relates to withdrawal of suits. The third objection is that the application has not been filed before the jurisdictional Court in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondents argues that the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta has the jurisdiction to entertain this application since the first application was made by the petitioner before the learned City Civil Court under section 9 of the 1996 Act. Counsel relies on the fact that the petitioner’s claim is of Rs. 67.53 lakhs hence ousting the jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel relies on section 2(1)(b) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for the definition of “Commercial Court” and also submits that Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC would be applicable to the present proceeding whereupon the petitioner cannot be permitted to institute a fresh proceeding in respect of the same subject matter after abandoning the earlier proceeding without the permission of the Court to file the fresh proceeding. Counsel relies on Clause 29 of the Loan Agreement to urge that the Courts at Chennai would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising from the loan agreement.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner opposes the preliminary objections on the ground that the 1996 Act is a complete Code and that section 2(1)(e) of the said Act makes it clear that proceedings are to be received, tried and adjudicated only by the Court which fulfils the criteria of section 2(1)(e) of the Act. According to counsel, where there are two principal Civil Courts of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, only the superior Court will have the jurisdiction to receive and entertain all the proceedings under the 1996 Act. Counsel also argues that there is no financial platform under the 1996 Act and that the learned City Civil Court cannot be the superior principal Court of ordinary original jurisdiction in the district of Kolkata under section 2(1)(e) even if it is conferred with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain applications under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. The preliminary objections taken on behalf of the respondents form the crux of the adjudication. The issues, in essence, are :

(a) Whether the Calcutta High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present application;

(b) Whether the present application is barred under section 42 of the 1996 Act and Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC; and

(c) Whether the Calcutta High Court is the proper Court in terms of the arbitration clause in the Loan Agreement.

Does the Calcutta High Court lack jurisdiction for entertaining the present application?

6. Section 2(1)(e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 defines "Court" as

2. (1)......

(e) "Court" means -

(i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the

subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;

(ii) in the case of internation