Court affirmed petitioners' right to seek interim orders in chosen jurisdiction under Section 9 despite arbitration seat specifications.

JUDGMENT

These original petitions have been filed by the petitioners for issuing a direction to the District Court, Ernakulam, to assign numbers to the petitions and to take them up for consideration for passing appropriate orders under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act” for short).

2.Heard the arguments for the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3.The petitioners are financiers, and the respondents are borrowers who have defaulted in repaying the loan. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, seeking an interim order before the District Court, Ernakulam for taking over possession of the vehicle. However, the office of the District Court, Ernakulam, raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and, on the said ground, returned the files to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are before this court.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is an arbitration clause in the loan agreement, specifically Clauses 15 and 16, which provide that any dispute arising between the parties shall be resolved through arbitration. The agreement also stipulates that the place of arbitration shall be Mumbai. However, the counsel submits that for the purpose of invoking Section 9 of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to approach a court having jurisdiction as per the choice of the petitioners, and therefore, the application ought not to have been rejected or returned by the District Court.

5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma J.V. v. NHPC Ltd. , (2020) 4 SCC 234 . Based on the principles laid down in the said judgment, this Court, in O.P.(C) No. 2123 of 2025 dated 26.08.2025, had directed the District Court to assign a number to the petition and take up the matter. Therefore, it is contended that the return of the files by the District court is not correct and therefore, prayed for directing the District Court to take the matter and assign the number.

6.This Court obtained a report from the concerned District Court in OP (C) No.2834/2025. The District Court has reported that the learned counsel brought to the notice of the court in respect of the judgment passed by this court in OP(C) No.2123 of 2025, but the petitioners had already taken back the file, and therefore, no case was pending before that court at the relevant point of time.

7.On perusal of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases, as well as the endorsement made by the District Court, it is seen that the learned counsel had brought to the notice of the court that the petitions were filed by the petitioners before the District Court and that an endorsement had been made and the matter was placed before the court. The endorsement reveals that the petitioners' counsel had requested the office to place the matter before the District Court Bench. However, the District Judge orally returned the file without passing any order rejecting the application.

8.The endorsement, as well as the report submitted by the District Court in O.P.(C) No. 2834 of 2025, clearly reveals that the files were returned by the court. This Court, in O.P.(C) No. 2123 of 2025, has categorically held in paragraph 6 of the order as under ;

“6.Having heard the arguments and perused the records by impugned order, the District Judge, Ernakulam, returned the petition by relying upon the Judgment of the High court in the case of IDA Malappuram Branch. In that case, where the parties approached the Kerala High court for appointing the arbitrator and arbitr