Vikramajit Sen, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein, namely M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. has filed this application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 read with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure which I find has the oblique motive to confine jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi. The facts, briefly narrated are that the Respondent, namely, M/s Indiana Engineering works Pvt. Ltd. had filed a Winding-up Petition in the High court at Ranchi, which Petition was allowed. The Petitioner filed an Appeal and in the course of its hearing it came to light that the disputes between the parties were governed by an Arbitration Clause. At that juncture, a Consent Order was passed referring the disputes to the Sole arbitration of Justice L. N. Prasad (Retd. ). An Award has since been published, against which Objections have been filed by the Respondent in the principal City Civil Court, Ranchi. These Objections are pending adjudication.

( 2 ) THIS Petition has been filed on the assertions that the petitioner/judgment Debtor had addressed numerous communications to the Respondent/decree Holder, asking the latter to furnish an unconditional acceptance of the Award and a receipt of payment in full and final settlement of all the Respondent s claims. A photocopy of a cheque dated 22. 5. 2003 for an amount of Rs. 25,89,0357- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Connaught place, New Delhi has been filed along with the Petition. However, this cheque had not been tendered to the Respondent. Reliance has been placed on Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, a reading whereof discloses that it merely enunciates that where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has. been refused, the Award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. There is some controversy as to whether the objections had been filed within the statutory period and whether they had been filed prior to the initiation of the present Petition. The Respondent has pleaded in unequivocal terms that the Objections to the Award dated 24. 3. 2003 had been filed and were admitted vide Orders of the court dated 8. 9. 2003 and notice thereof was issued on 17. 9. 2003. These averments have not been categorically denied, and the Reply of the petitioner herein, principally assails the jurisdiction of Courts in Ranchi, jharkhand. This Petition under Section 36 of the said Act has been filed on 3. 9. 2003 and notice was ordered by the Court to issue on 9. 9. 2003.

( 3 ) IT has also been contended before me by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Objections had been filed in a Court which does not possess territorial jurisdiction to decide them. There can be no gainsaying that so far as the question of jurisdiction of a Court is concerned, it is not proper for one Court to decide or pronounce upon the issue of whether another Court has jurisdiction or not. Each Court must satisfy itself that it possesses jurisdiction whether territorial or pecuniary, especially when such a ground is asserted. It would offend judicial comity and propriety and would be impermissible even otherwise for me to pronounce upon whether the Courts at Ranchi should desist from exercising jurisdiction. For these reasons, reliance of the Petitioner on National Alluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel and Fabrication Co. Ltd. , (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 540 as well as Jagson Airlines Ltd. and Anr. v. Bannari Amman Exports (P) Ltd. , 2003 (69) DRJ 490 is otiose and irrelevant for the decision of this Petition. The opinion of the Hon ble Supreme Court which arguably militates against the argument of Ms. Chopra, is in these words:-

"it is to be noted that as per the above order, this Court has not retained any power or control over the arbitration proceedings while appointing the arbitrator by consent of parties; on the contrary, it seems this Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document