Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi v. District & Sessions
Judge & Another
Writ Petition No. 19656 of 2020(Jabalpur);
Decided on 26.2.2021
Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State; Anshuman Singh for High Court of M.P.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- Ss. 2(1)(e), 9, 14, 34 and 36 -- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 -- Ss. 2(1)(b), 2(1)(e), 3, 10, 11 and 15(2) -- M. P.Civil Courts Act, 1958 -- Ss. 7 and 15 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 194,381(1) and 400 -- work distribution -- Entry No.45 of work distribution order dated 20.10.2020 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal -- disputes/cases filed under Arbitration Act involving commercial disputes under Commercial Courts Act of specified value between Rs.3 lac to Rs.1 crore assigned to Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal -- challenge to validity -- held -- evident from language employed in definition clause of "Court" in S. 2(1)(e) of Arbitration Act that Legislature intended to confer power in respect of disputes involving arbitration on highest judicial Court of district so as to minimize supervisory role of Courts in arbitral process -- purposely excluded any civil Court of grade inferior to such principal civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes -- Court of superior-most jurisdiction in a district is Court of District Judge -- segregation of arbitration matters on basis of pecuniary limit is not what law provides for -- all arbitration matters, irrespective of value of claim, are required to be adjudicated by principal civil Court of original jurisdiction -- inrespect of commercial disputes involving arbitration dispute, only Commercial Court of status of District Judge or Additional District Judge would be competent Court to entertain matters u/ss. 9, 14, 34 and 36 of Arbitration Act -- impugned order can be sustained insofar as distribution of commercial disputes of value of claimin cases other than arbitration matters are concerned -- impugned order to extent of classifying commercial disputes having subject matter of arbitration on basis of valuation and conferring powers there for on Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, would be violative of relevant provisions of law -- Entry No.45 of impugned order set aside -- Court of District Judge as principal civil Court of original jurisdiction would be competent to decide matters/disputes filed u/ss. 9, 14, 34 and 36 of Arbitration Act and also under provisions of Commercial Courts Act regardless of value of claim -- however, District Judge, by virtue of S. 7 r/w S. 15 of Civil Courts Act, would be entitled to distribute such work amongst any of the Additional District Judges under his supervision, but not to any Court of Civil Judge Class-I or Senior Civil Judge, or any Court of Small Causes. (2014) 11 SCC 619 followed. (2016) SCC Online Guj. 5981, R/Special Civil Application No. 13736 of 2018 decided on 6.9.2018 (Guj.), R/Appeal No. 216 of 2018 decided on 11.2.2019 (Guj.), AIR 2020 Raj. 56, (2019) SCC Online Guj. 4236 and (2019) SCC Online Guj. 3972 discussed. (2018) 14 SCC 715, (2015) 1 SCC 32, Appeal From Order No.378 of 2019 decided on 23.9.2019 (Uttarakhand), 2020 (4) MPLJ 353, 2005-IV WLC 251 (Raj.) and (2018) SCC Online Raj. 3055 referred to. [Paras 14 & 15]
ekè;LFke~ v©j lqyg vfèkfu;e] 1996 & èkkjk 2¼1½ ¼M+½] 9] 14] 34 rFkk 36 & okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vfèkfu;e] 2015 & èkkjk 2¼1½ ¼[k½] 2¼1½ ¼M+½] 3] 10] 11 rFkk 15¼2½ & eŒçŒ flfoy U;k;ky; vfèkfu;e] 1958 & èkkjk 7 rFkk 15 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 194] 381¼1½ rFkk 400 & dk;Z forj.k & ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;kèkh'k] Ò¨iky }kjk ikfjr dk;Z forj.k vkns'k fnukad 20-10-2020 dh çfof"V Øekad 45 & ekè;LFke~ vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu Qkby fd, x, fookn@ekeys ftuesa okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu #i;s 3 yk[k ls #i;s 1 dj¨M+ d¢ eè; fofufnZ"V ewY; d¢ okf.kfT;d fookn varoZfyr gSa] chlosa flfoy U;k;kèkh'k oxZ&1] Ò¨iky d¢ U;k;ky; d¨ l©ais tkuk & fofèkekU;rk ij vk{ksi & vfÒfuèkkZfjr & ekè;LFke~ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2¼1½ ¼M+½ esa ^^U;k;ky;^^ d¢ ifjÒk"kk [kaM esa ç;qDr Òk"kk ls lqLi"V fd foèkku eaMy dk vk'k; mu fookn¨a d¢ lacaèk esa] ftuesa ekè;LFke~ varoZfyr gS] ftys d¢ mPpre U;kf;d U;k;ky; d¨ 'kfDr çnRr djus dk Fkk rkfd ekè;LFke~ çfØ;k esa U;k;ky;¨a dh i;Zos{k.k Òwfedk U;wure jgs & ,sls çèkku flfoy U;k;ky; ls voj Js.kh d¢ fdlh Òh flfoy U;k;ky; d¨] ;k fdlh Òh yÄq okn U;k;ky; d¨] ç;¨tuiwoZd vioftZr fd;k & ftys esa ofj"Bre vfèkdkfjrk dk U;k;ky; ftyk U;k;kèkh'k dk U;k;ky; gS & fofèk esa èku&lacaèkh lhek d¢ vkèkkj ij ekè;LFke~ ekey¨a dk i`Fkd~dj.k micafèkr ugha & lÒh ekè;LFke~ ekey¨a dk U;k;fu.kZ;u] nkos d¢ ewY; ls fujis{k] ewy vfèkdkfjrk okys çèkku flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tkuk visf{kr & ml okf.kfT;d fookn d¢ lacaèk esa ftlesa ekè;LFke~ fookn varoZfyr gS] ftyk U;k;kèkh'k vFkok vfrfjDr ftyk U;k;kèkh'k dh gSfl;r dk okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; gh ekè;LFke~ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 9] 14] 34 v©j 36 d¢ vèkhu ekeys xzg.k djus d¢ fy, l{ke U;k;ky; g¨xk & tgk¡ rd ekè;LFke~ ekey¨a ls fÒUu ekey¨a esa nkos d¢ ewY; d¢ okf.kfT;d fookn dk forj.k lacafèkr gS] vkf{kIr vkns'k fLFkj j[kk tk ldrk gS & ekè;LFke~ dh fo"k;oLrq okys okf.kfT;d fookn¨a d¨ ewY; d¢ vkèkkj ij oxÊÑr djus rFkk mud¢ fy, chlosa flfoy U;k;kèkh'k oxZ&1] Ò¨iky d¢ U;k;ky; d¨ 'kfDr çnRr djus dh lhek rd vkf{kIr vkns'k ls fofèk d¢ lqlaxr micaèk¨a dk vfrØe.k g¨xk & vkf{kIr vkns'k dh çfof"V Øekad 45 vikLr & ewy vfèkdkfjrk d¢ çèkku flfoy U;k;ky; d¢ :i esa ftyk U;k;kèkh'k dk U;k;ky; ekè;LFke~ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 9] 14] 34 v©j 36 d¢ vèkhu rFkk okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vèkhu Òh Qkby fd, x, ekey¨a@fookn¨a d¨] nkos d¢ ewY; ij è;ku fn, fcuk] fofuf'pr djus d¢ fy, l{ke g¨xk & rFkkfi] ftyk U;k;kèkh'k] flfoy U;k;ky; vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 7 d¢ lkFk ifBr èkkjk 15 d¢ vkèkkj ij] vius i;Zos{k.k d¢ vèkhu vfrfjDr ftyk U;k;kèkh'k¨a esa ls fdlh d¨ Òh ,slk dk;Z forfjr djus dk gdnkj g¨xk] ijarq flfoy U;k;kèkh'k oxZ&1 ;k T;s"B flfoy U;k;kèkh'k d¢ fdlh U;k;ky; d¨] vFkok yÄq okn d¢ fdlh U;k;ky; d¨ ughaA ¼2014½ 11 ,l lh lh 619 vuqlfjrA ¼2016½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu xqtjkr 5981] vkj@Lis'ky flfoy ,Iyhd¢'ku Øekad 13736 lu~ 2018 fu.kÊr fnukad 6-9-2018 ¼xqtjkr½] vkj@vihy Øekad 216 lu~ 2018 fu.kÊr fnukad 11-2-2019 ¼xqtjkr½] , vkb vkj 2020 jktLFkku 56] ¼2019½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu xqtjkr 4236 rFkk ¼2019½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu xqtjkr 3972 foosfprA ¼2018½ 14 ,l lh lh 715] ¼2015½ 1 ,l lh lh 32] vihy ÝkWe vkWMZj Øekad 378 lu~ 2019 fu.kÊr fnukad 23-9-2019 ¼mÙkjk[kaM½] 2020 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 353] 2005&4 MCY;w ,y lh 251 ¼jktLFkku½ rFkk ¼2018½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu jktLFkku 3055 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½
ORDER
Rafiq, C.J. -- 1. This writ petition has been filed by Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi, who is an advocate practising law at Bhopal, assailing the validity of order dated 20th October, 2020 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by section 15(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (for short “the Civil Courts Act”) read with sections 194, 381(1) & 400 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), distributing civil and criminal business amongst the various Additional District Judges and Subordinate Judges working under his supervision in the District of Bhopal. Challenge in particular is made to Entry No.45 of the aforesaid order vide which the disputes/cases filed under the provisions of sections 9, 14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”) involving commercial disputes under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (further be called as “the Commercial Courts Act”) of specified value between Rs.3 lac. to Rs.1 crore, have been assigned to the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal.
2. Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allocation/distribution of the judicial work by the District Judge with regard to the commercial disputes filed under sections 9, 14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration Act to the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I is wholly incompetent inasmuch as such allocation is based on wrongful interpretation of the legal provisions of the Arbitration Act, the Commercial Courts Act as well as the civil Courts Act. It is contended that the District Judge has passed the aforesaid order in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under sections 15(1) of the civil Courts Act read with sections 194, 381(1) and 400 of CrPC. The work distribution circular numbered as Q/EK-01/2020 dated 20.10.2020 at Paras- (C) & (D) of Entry No.45 assigned power to undertake trial of commercial disputes for a specific category as per the Commercial Courts Act to the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, having pecuniary jurisdiction over matters valued between Rs. 3 lac. and Rs.1 crore, which also includes the matter that comes under the purview of the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel submitted that the term “specified value” is defined in section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that “specified value” in relation to a commercial dispute is determined on the basis of the subject matter of the respective suit, appeal or application. Sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act provides that all applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall be tried before any Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction. It is true that the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal has been designated as a Commercial Court vide notification dated 2-3.4.2019 (Annexure-P/2), but the Arbitration Act is a consolidated statute for law relating to any form of arbitration dispute. The Legislature in so providing, intended to streamline the commercial disputes arising out of arbitration in speedy manner, for which purpose the Special Courts have been set up. With that end in view, the Parliament has time and again made amendments in tune with modern day developments.
3. Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel further argued that the term “Court” for the purpose of Arbitration Act has been defined under section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act which inter-alia provides that “Court” means, in cases 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 inferio
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the Commercial Court has the jurisdiction to execute its own decree or a decree transferred to it, where the value is above the specified ....
Jurisdiction of Commercial Courts – All applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, other than international commercial arbitration,....
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 grants jurisdiction to Commercial Courts for executing arbitral awards related to commercial disputes, emphasizing expedited resolution.
Commercial Courts are empowered to execute arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reaffirming the intent of the Commercial Courts Act for speedy resolution of commercial disputes....
The court affirms that Additional District Judges have jurisdiction to handle arbitration awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, broadening the interpretation of 'Court' within this conte....
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
