ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with following prayers:

“24[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to hear the Petition under Arbitration Act IAAP No. 106 of 2016 in terms of the explanation to section 47 of the Arbitration Act.

[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to pass appropriate directions restraining the District Court at Mehsana from hearing the Petition under Arbitration Act, i.e. IAAP No. 106 of 2016.

[C] You (sic. Your) Lordships may be pleased to direct the Registry of the District Court at Mehsana to return the records and proceedings of the Petition under Arbitration Act, i.e. IAAP No. 106 of 2016, to this Hon’ble Court and further pass appropriate directions to have the Petition under Arbitration Act, i.e. IAAP No. 106 of 2016 listed before the Hon’ble Judge of this Court vested with the roster to hear such matters.

[D] Your Lordships may be pleased to pass other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Nutshell facts, as emerge from the record, are that the petitioner obtained Foreign Arbitration Awards dated 26.02.2016 and 26.04.2016 and thereafter, filed an enforcement petition being IAAP No. 106 of 2016 before this Court on 11.11.2016 for enforcement of the said awards. On 20.03.2017, the respondent filed objections to the enforcement of the awards and thereafter, the matter was heard and on 01.07.2019, judgment was reserved. Thereafter, on 09.08.2019, Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 came to be passed and by virtue of the amendments made therein, the jurisdiction of this Court was ousted and hence, on 22.08.2019, the respondent made an oral application to the effect that this Court (High Court) had no jurisdiction in view of amendments, which came to be rejected. The respondent, again on 09.09.2019, submitted that the provisions under the 2019 Amendment Act taking away the jurisdiction of this Court from hearing the aforesaid IAAP No. 106 of 2016 (Sections 11 to 13) came into force on 30.08.2019 and thereafter, the Court, hearing both the sides, vide order dated 19.09.2019, held that the jurisdiction of the Court had been ousted dis-entitling the Court to pronounce the judgment and accordingly, directed to remit the matter to the District Court, Mehsana, to be decided within a period of 10 weeks. However, thereafter, in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2020) 17 SCC 324 dated 27.11.2019, the Apex Court struck down Sections 13 and 15 of the 2019 Amendment Act, holding them to be manifestly arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence, in view of Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the aforesaid IAAP and therefore, this petition with aforesaid prayers.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Amitava Majumdar for learned advocate Ms. Tripti Sharma for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. M. I. Hava for learned advocate Ms. Swati B. Singhal the respondent.

3.1 The crux of the submissions of Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate for the petitioner, is that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (supra), striking down Sections 13 (inserting Section 87 w.e.f. 23.10.2015) and 15 (omitting Section 26 of 2015 Act w.e.f. 23.10.2015) of the 2019 Arbitration (Amendment) Act, holding them to be manifestly arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and in view of Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, only this Court (High Court) has jurisdiction to hear the aforesaid IAAP No. 106 of 2016. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow this petition and to declare that only this Court has jurisdiction to hear the aforesaid petition. It is also prayed to direct the registry of the District Court, Mehsana to call for the R&P to this Court for the purpose.

3.2 In support, the learned advocate