IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2024 Tata Motors Finance Solution Ltd …Applicant Versus Parbez Hamid …Respondent Mr.Gaurav Jangle for the Applicant.

Ms. Shabnam for Respondent.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

DATE : JUNE 12, 2025 Oral Judgement:

1. At the threshold, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant-Tata Motors Finance Solutions Limited has merged into Tata Capital Limited pursuant to an order dated May 1, 2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). The revised certificate of incorporation is yet to be received. Since the order has already been passed by the NCLT, liberty to effect the change in front of the Associate. Re-verification is dispensed with.

ASHWINI JANARDAN VALLAKATI ASHWINI JANARDAN VALLAKATI Date: 2025.06.19 Page 1 of 10

12:06:24 +0530

2. This Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), has been made in connection with disputes and differences between the parties arising out of loan agreements dated June 30, 2018 and February 15, 2021 read with a fast track loan agreement dated March 25, 2021. It is common ground that the arbitration agreement is contained in clause 21 and 10 respectively in the aforesaid three agreements and the existence of the arbitration agreement is the sole issue that would arise for consideration by the Section 11 Court. In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. However, there is a twist in the factual matrix of this case. The “Court” under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act before which a Petition under Section 9 has been filed is the City Civil Court, located in Kolkata. That Court being a district Court, evidently, would not have jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act since the jurisdiction under Section 11 is solely vested in a High Court. In reliance upon the jurisdictional clause conferring jurisdiction on courts in Mumbai, this Application under Section 11 has been moved.

4. However, the entire scheme of the Act has to be borne in mind. While it is true that this Court may have jurisdiction, the interplay of Section 11 of the Act with Section 42 of the Act, arises for consideration.

It would be appropriate to extract Section 42, which reads thus:

Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all sequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.

[Emphasis Supplied]

5. Section 42 is a non-obstante provision and fastens the jurisdiction of all future applications on the court first moved under the Act. In other words, once an application in connection with any arbitration agreement has been made in a given court with jurisdiction, all future applications would necessarily have to be made in that Court alone and in no other Court. This emphatic provision stipulates a specific legislative objective that is writ large on its face. The evident objective behind Section 42 of the Act is to require parties to an arbitration agreement access the court that is seized of an application under the Act. The legislative intervention in Section 42 is obviously founded on the principle of forum conveniens and aimed at avoiding multiple forums being seized of matters relating to the same arbitration agreement. It is meant to streamline the jurisdiction of multiple courts and to focus the jurisdiction in a single forum for all matters under the agreement that is subject matter of the arbitration.

6. Indeed, a district court has no jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, which confers juri