A court lacking jurisdiction to entertain an arbitration application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 renders its order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

Appellant is challenging the order dated 8.7.2025 in O.P.(Arb.)No.233/2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Thalassery. The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 by the respondent seeking interim measures of protection pending commencement of arbitral proceedings. The following interim reliefs were sought against the appellant:-

“1. An order directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to remove its machinery from the Chelora worksite.

2. A direction to the respondent to deposit the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.4,25,28,522/- before this Court.

3. A direction to the respondent to file an affidavit disclosing the agreement for the extension of the contract.

4. A direction to the respondent to produce the minutes of the meeting bearing reference No.OBS- 1387733 dated 12.03.2025.”

2. The appellant entered appearance and filed objections. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge partly allowed the petition and issued the following directions: -

“1. The respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to remove the Excavator (Poclain - Hyundai Hydraulic R-210-7) and the Hywa Tippers (MH12 VF 4217 bearing R.C.No. MH25590572) from the Chelora worksite forthwith. The respondent shall be entitled to obtain appropriate letters or acknowledgments from the petitioner as proof of removal of the said machinery.

2. The petitioner shall take steps to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with Clause 9 and Clause 10 of the agreement dated 07.05.2022.

3. The parties are at liberty to raise all their claims and contentions before the Arbitral Tribunal, and any observations made in this order are purely prima facie and for the limited purpose of deciding this petition.”

3. Appellant raised various contentions in the memorandum of appeal. Later, an application for amendment was filed and an additional ground was incorporated regarding maintainability of the petition under Section 9 before the District Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Act was not maintainable before the District Court as Commercial Court was established at Thalassery before the filing of the petition. She referred to the notification dated 24.2.2020 issued under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 by the Government of Kerala in consultation with this Court. By the said notification Subordinate Judge’s Courts were designated as Commercial Courts in all districts of Kerala for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction and powers conferred on the Commercial Courts under the , 2015. By virtue of the said notification, the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery was designated as the Commercial Court for the Thalassery Judicial District. She hence submitted that the petition ought not to have been entertained by the learned Additional District Judge and the order was passed without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent replied to this contention by submitting that the impugned order was passed by the District Court having jurisdiction and no objection was raised by the appellant before the said court regarding lack of jurisdiction. He therefore submitted that the said contention is not liable to be considered by this Court in this appeal.

6. Question of jurisdiction is a matter which goes to the root. Even if it was not raised before the Additional District Court, this Court is not precluded from considering the contention regarding jurisdiction as it is a question of law.

7. Section 10 of theCommercial Courts Act, 2015 deals with the jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters. (3) reads as under:-

“10. Jurisd