SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. SOUMEN SEN, CJ, MR. SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/S SOUTH EAST CORPORATION – Respondent
ARB.A NO. 30 OF 2025 | ARB.A NO. 21 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL
For the Respondents: SRI.PAUL JACOB, SMT.SHERU JOSEPH, SHRI.MATHEW THOMAS, SMT.NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE, SHRI.DIPAK CHERIAN ABRAHAM, SHRI.VIVEK THOMAS, SRI.JOSEPH FREEMAN

The trial court lacked jurisdiction under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to decide applications for setting aside the arbitration award.

Headnote:The court analyzed the jurisdictional issue concerning the applications to set aside an arbitration award under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The trial court's jurisdiction was challenged and found lacking, resulting in the overturning of previous judgments without addressing their merits. The primary issue included whether the learned Trial Court had jurisdiction over the applications involved, which was acknowledged as a substantive point. The court ultimately set aside the impugned judgments on jurisdictional grounds, ordering a competent court to expedite the resolution of the arbitration appeals.

Table of Content
1. jurisdictional issues discussed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide applications. (Para 3 , 4)
3. final conclusion on disposal of appeals. (Para 5)

We have heard Sri. Mathews K. Philip, learned counsel for the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Sri. Paul Jacob, learned counsel for the South East Corporation.

2. The learned counsel for the parties submit that both the appeals may be heard together and disposed of on the issue with regard to the jurisdiction.

3. The common thread of challenge to the impugned judgments is that the learned Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the applications for setting aside the award in view of Section 15 (2) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015. We find substance in the said submission. It appears that the said provision was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge while deciding the matter. On such consideration, the impugned judgments are set aside solely on the ground that the learned Trial Court lacked the jurisdiction in deciding the applications for setting aside the award.

4. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the appeals. We request the learned Commercial Court having jurisdiction to dispose of both the applications for setting aside the award as expeditiously as possible.

5. The appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top