Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
M/s.OMR Developers Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
A.S. Sathar & Ors. - Respondents
OSA (CAD) No. 172 of 2023 And CMP No. 29060 of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. K.M. Aasim Shehzad for Mr. K. Alakendran.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Raja.
IMPORTANT POINT
An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can only be entertained by a court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the arbitration, as defined in the Act.
Headnote:
ARBITRATION - JURISDICTION - The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the property in question was outside its original jurisdiction, thereby affirming the dismissal of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, related to a Joint Venture Agreement for property development in Karapakkam Village, outside the court's jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application since the property was not within its original jurisdiction, leading to the conclusion that the application should not have been entertained.
Issues: Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the location of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which defines 'Court' and establishes that only the court with jurisdiction over the subject matter can entertain such applications.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court set aside the observations made by the lower judge, affirming the lack of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT :
R. Subramanian, J.
[PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in O.A.No.715 of 2023.]
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed dismissing the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The Joint Venture Agreement which forms the basis of the arbitration proceedings shows that it is a Joint Venture Agreement for development of immovable property situate in Karapakkam Village of Tambaram Taluk of Kancheepuram District which is outside the original jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 defines “Court” as follows :
“(e)“Court” means—
(i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;
(ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court.”
4. A reading of the above provision would show that an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be entertained only by the Court which has jurisdiction to decide a Suit on the subject matter of arbitration, if it is raised as a civil dispute.
5. It is clear to our mind that this Court will not have the jurisdiction to decide the issues which arise for arbitration or the Section 9 application since the property is not situate within its original jurisdiction. Hence, the very application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ought not to have been entertained by this Court. Therefore, while sustaining the conclusion of the Hon'ble Judge dismissing the application under Section 9, we set aside all the observations made by the Hon'ble Judge as this Court has no jurisdiction to decide those questions and leave it open to the appellant to seek appropriate legal remedy as he may be advised.
6. The Appeal is therefore dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
