The court reiterated that jurisdictional issues under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be determined by appropriate courts as prescribed by law.

JUDGMENT

In both these original petitions, at the time of argument, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as the application for lifting of attachment. The contention is that the Commercial Court had to deal with such matters and the District Court was an appellate forum and could not have decided the case. Even though such a contention is not taken before the District Court since it is a question of jurisdiction, I do not find any legal infirmity in raising the issue. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions in Jaycee Housing Pvt.Ltd. and Others v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, Cuttack and Others [2022 KHC 7114], Alexander Luke v. M/s. Aditya Birla Money Ltd. [2024 KHC 107] and Karthik Exports (M/s.) v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal [2025 KHC 309] in support of the above contention.

2. The Senior Counsel Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no ground for entertaining this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that an appellate remedy was very much available and the petitioner should have availed of the said remedy. It is further argued that it is not a case of total absence of jurisdiction in the District Court and hence there is no necessity to interfere with the orders of the District Court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others [1993 KHC 1221] and the judgment of this Court in Pooram Finserv Private Limited (NBFC), Thrissur v. Santhosh Kumar Robinson K.S. [2024 (6) KHC 146] . In Pooram Finserve Private Limited (NBFC), Thrissur (supra) a Division Bench of this Court after having found that the District Court did not have jurisdiction. However, this Court did not exercise its jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of the District Court since on facts it was a case where the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hedge Finance Pvt.Ltd., Ernakulam Vs. Bijesh Joseph [ILR 2022 (3) Ker.947] applied and even the appointment of Arbitrator was bad in law. The Court said that even if the matter is to be remanded back to the court with jurisdiction, the same result would have followed. Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra) was a case in which the power of probate court was considered and is not one rendered in a like situation. In Jaycee Housing Pvt.Ltd. and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and held that the designated commercial courts which are subordinate to the rank of Principal Civil Judge in the District have the jurisdiction to hear appeals/application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act . In Alexander Luke (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Section 6 and Section 10 (3) of the , 2015 held that a commercial dispute even if it arises under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act would have to be considered by the Commercial Court. In Karthik Exports (supra), this Court was considering the jurisdiction to consider execution petitions and it was held that it is the Commercial Court which has to deal with the case.

3. The orders which are impugned in these original petitions have been rendered without considering the question whether the court has jurisdiction. In the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the contentions, I am of the opinion that it is only appropriate that the court reconsiders the question of jurisdiction first and proceed with the case only if it is found that the court has jurisdiction. If the court is of the opin