RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. These two petitions entail an identical question of law; though the counsels for the parties in the two matters were heard on separate days but the petitions are disposed of together by this common judgment.

2. CRP No.73/2008 has been preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge to whom a petition preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, with respect to an arbitration award in an arbitration proceeding claim wherein was for Rs.44,300/- only, had been assigned, holding that the jurisdiction to entertain suit the pecuniary value whereof was upto Rs.3,00,000/- being of the Civil Judge, Delhi, the petition was not maintainable before him; accordingly, the petition was ordered to be transferred for decision by a court of appropriate jurisdiction. This Court while issuing notice of the petition on 2nd May, 2008, stayed proceedings in the matter before the Civil Judge and the proceedings so remain stayed. Though the petition before this Court has been preferred as under Section 115 of the CPC and does not lie as such but the same is treated as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and heard and is being disposed off as such.

3. CM(M) No.1105/2008 has been preferred by a respondent (before the trial court) in a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 34 of the Act with respect to an arbitral award in an arbitration proceeding, claims wherein were for less than Rs.3,00,000/-. The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was preferred in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and marked to the court of a Civil Judge. A preliminary issue as to whether the said petition had been filed within time or not was framed and evidence recorded thereon. The Civil Judge by a judgment running into over 40 pages held the petition to be time barred and dismissed the same as such. The respondent herein preferred an appeal against the said order to the court of the District Judge and the same was marked to the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi. The Additional District Judge, Delhi vide order dated 23rd April, 2007 held that the petition under Section 34 of the Act, by virtue of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act could not have been entertained by the court of the Civil Judge, Delhi. The Additional District Judge, accordingly holding the order of the Civil Judge to be non-est in the eyes of law set aside the same and directed the parties to appear before the Civil Judge and directed the Civil Judge to transfer the matter to the District Judge for assignment to a court of appropriate jurisdiction for adjudication. The District Judge accordingly marked the matter to an Additional District Judge. However, the Additional District Judge to whom the matter was marked held that the claims being of less than Rs.3,00,000/-, the petition under Section 34 was maintainable before the Civil Judge only. Reliance in this regard was placed on the order dated 27th July, 2007 of a Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Sunita Gupta Vs. M/s Garg & Co. CM(M) No.508/2007. The parties were as such again referred to the District Judge. The District Judge on receipt of the file again mechanically marked the file to the Court of a Civil Judge for adjudication. The Civil Judge directed the parties to complete the pleadings. Aggrieved there from the petitioner approached this Court.

4. The factual matrix in both the cases would thus show that the question for adjudication is as to which is the “court” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, whether the court of the District Judge / Additional District Judge only or the court of the Senior Civil Judge / Civil Judge vis-à-vis matter pecuniary jurisdiction whereof is less than Rs.3,00,000/-?. 5. Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is as under:-

“Court” means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary ori

Click Here to Read the rest of this document