Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Neo Metalicks Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction determined by seat of arbitration. (Para 1 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability under section 42. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. scenarios affecting jurisdiction under section 42. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. understanding of hypothetical and chosen arbitration seats. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. decision on maintainability in favor of applicants. (Para 19) |
| 6. proceedings to continue with merits hearing. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. During arguments on the merits of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the 1996 Act”), a query was posed by the Court as to whether the present applications under Sections 34 and 36 of the said Act are maintainable before this Court, by operation of Section 42 of the 1996 Act, since an earlier application under Section 14 of the said Act had been preferred before the Delhi High Court and was decided by it.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act contends that if the parties choose a particular forum as the seat of arbitration, the courts having jurisdiction over such se
The jurisdiction in arbitration applications is determined by the chosen seat of arbitration, irrespective of prior applications filed in other courts.
The designation of a seat of arbitration grants exclusive jurisdiction to the courts at that location, precluding jurisdiction elsewhere, as per Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19....
The jurisdiction for setting aside arbitral awards lies exclusively with the City Civil Court as per Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act is exclusive, necessitating that challenges to arbitral awards be made before the appropriate court.
Venue of arbitration does not equate to its jurisdictional seat; petitions under the Arbitration Act must be filed where arbitration took place, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
The principle of jurisdictional exclusivity under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, mandates that all applications related to an arbitration agreement must be filed in the sam....
A designated seat of arbitration confers exclusive jurisdiction to the designated courts, excluding all others, as established in precedent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
