ORDER :

Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the Order in I.A.Nos.292, 293, 294 and 295 of 2018 in Ar. O.P.No.72 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge (Full Additional Charge/Additional District Judge), Thoothukudi dated 11.10.2018.

NLC India Limited and SICAL logistics Limited have a contractual arrangement with regard to transportation of coal. Disputes have arisen between them. Since the contract provides for resolving the dispute through arbitral process, the respondent herein has resorted to the same. In fact, the respondent has already nominated a former Judge of this Court as their Arbitrator. The respondent also filed Arbitration O.P.No.72 of 2018 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, on 04.10.2018. They also filed four interim applications in the said Arbitration O.P. Ex-parte interim orders were granted in all these four interim applications on 11.10.2018. They are challenged in these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. Shri. Isaac Mohanlal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners first contended that the orders impugned in these civil revision petitions are patently without jurisdiction. This was because they were passed not by the Principal District Judge but by the Additional District Judge who was only holding full additional charge as Principal District Judge. He drew the attention of this Court to Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which defines the expression ?court?. It is clear from the said definition that ‘court’ would mean the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District and does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court. In the memorandum of grounds also it had been pointedly contended that the jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Act vests only with the Principal District Judge and not with the Additional District Judge even if he is holding additional charge as the Principal District Judge. He placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Calcutta reported in 2016 (1) ARBLR 50(Cal), Manu/WB/0651/2015 (National Highway Authority of India vs. B. Seenaiah & Company (Projects) Ltd).

3. I am however unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by Shri. M.R. Venkatesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the aforesaid decision has been overruled by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the decision reported in 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 859, Manu/WB/0424/2016 (West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation and ors vs. Impression and Ors). The Hon’ble Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as follows :

“72.We are, therefore, of the view that the Court of the Additional District Judge is also the principal Civil Court in the District and accept the view taken by the Hon’ble Division Bench in West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs. M/s.Impression. The view taken by National Highway Authority of India v. M/s. B. Seenaiah & Company (Projects) Limited would make the ‘District Judge’ a persona designata which has never been the intention of the legislature.

73. The reference is disposed of by affirming the view in West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limtied v. M/s. Impression.?

4. Shri. M.R. Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the respondent also points out that the Full Bench of the Chattisgarh High Court in the decision reported in 2018 SCC Online Chh 617 (A Suo Moto Taken Writ Petition vs. State of Chhattisgarh) has also taken the same view. Respectfully following the aforesaid two Full Bench decisions, this Court also holds that the word ‘court’ defined in Section 2(1)(e) also includes the court of Additional District Judge. Therefore, any ap