Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
L. C. BHADOO, J.
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Appellant
Versus
SARIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR - Respondents
W. P. 994 Of 2002
Decided On : MARCH 24, 2005
JURISDICTION - ARBITRATION - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 - Section 2(e), Section 42 - The court held that the District Judge alone has jurisdiction to decide applications under Section 34 of the Act, and cannot transfer the application to the Additional District Judge. The language of Section 42 of the Act overrides any other law, and the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district has exclusive jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and subsequent applications arising from the agreement.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute was referred to an Arbitrator who passed an award in favor of the respondent. The petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award. The District Judge transferred the application to the Additional District Judge, who rejected the objection raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional District Judge did not have jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act, and the District Judge was not entitled to transfer the application to the Additional District Judge.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, and the authority of the District Judge to transfer the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the language of Section 42 of the Act overrides any other law, and the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district has exclusive jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and subsequent applications arising from the agreement.
Final Decision: The order of the Additional District Judge was set aside, and the case was directed to be sent back to the court of District Judge for disposal in accordance with law.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this petition are that a dispute had arisen between the parlies and therefore, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who passed the arbitral award dated 11-12-1998 in favour of the respondent herein. Against the said award the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred as to "the Act of 1996") in the Court of District Judge, Raipur for setting aside the said award. However, learned district Judge transferred that application to the Court of learned Additional District judge (Special Judge) Raipur, which was registered as Suit No. 2-B/2000. The petitioner herein by amending his pleadings challenged the jurisdiction of learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Raipur to deal with that application on the ground that learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application filed under section 34 of the Act of 1996. Amongst other issues. Issue No. 1 was framed as preliminary issue objection regarding the jurisdiction and same was decided by learned additional District Judge vide order dated 13-3-2002 against the petitioner herein holding that Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to decide the application under section 34 of the Act of 1996.
( 3 ) THE petition of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 2 (e) and 42 of the Act of 1996 only the District Judge which is the Principal Civil Court of District, has the jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Moreover the said application was filed before that court, therefore, that Court was not entitled to transfer the said application to learned additional District Judge. Therefore, the order impugned passed by learned Additional district Judge is perverse, illegal and contrary to law.
( 4 ) RETURN to this writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent in which it has been mentioned that the Court of Additional District Judge has also vested with the powers of District Judge to decide the cases. Moreover, the District Judge while exercising the powers under Section 24 of the CPC transferred the application to Additional District Judge, therefore. Additional district Judge is competent to decide the application and who is not inferior to the district Judge.
( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the provisions of section 2 (e) and 42 of the Act of 1996 and Section 3 (17) of the General Clauses Act, the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, for the reasons that as per section 2 (e) of the Act of 1996 the "court" means the Principal Civil Court of the district and as per Section 3 (17) of General clauses Act the District Judge is the Judge of a Principal Civil Court and in view of Section 42 when any application with respect to an arbitration agreement is filed before the District Judge, the District Judge has no authority to transfer the said application and District Judge has to decide the application.
( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in view of the provisions of Sections 7 (2) and 8 of the m. P. Civil Court Act, 1958 (hereinafter shall be referred as to 'the Act of 1958') the Additional District Judge has been authorized to discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the function
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
