Back
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH, AT JABALPUR (DIVISION BENCH)
Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi ….…….. Petitioner Vs.
District & Sessions Judge and another ……… Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :
Mr. Deepesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the High Court of M.P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Laid Down ➔
As seen from the language employed in the definition clause of “Court” in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act,1996, the Legislature intended to confer power in respect of the disputes involving arbitration on the highest judicial Court of the District so as to minimize the supervisory role of the Courts in the arbitral process and, therefore, purposely excluded any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.
Thus, in respect of commercial disputes involving arbitration only the Commercial Court of the status of District Judge or Additional District Judge would be the competent court to entertain the matters under Sections 9, 14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act,1996. The impugned order to the extent of classifying the commercial disputes having arbitration as subject matter on the basis of Signature Not mere valuation and conferring powers therefor on the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, would be violative of relevant provisions of law. However, it can be sustained in so far as distribution of the work of commercial disputes as per the value of the claim in cases other than arbitration matters are concerned.
➔
The District Judge by virtue of Sections 7 & 15 of the Civil Courts Act of 1958 would be entitled to distribute such work amongst any of the Additional District Judges under his supervision, but not to any Court of Civil Judge Class-I or Senior Civil Judge, or any Court of Small Causes.
➔
The Court referred:
• Ess Kay Fincorp Limited and ors. vs. Suresh Choudhary and others, AIR 2020 Raj 56.
• Fun N. Fud vs. GLK Associates, 2019 SCC Online Guj 4236.
• Vijay Cotton and Fiber Company Vs. Agarwal Cotton Spinning Private Limited, R/Appeal No. 216 of 2018 decided on 11.02.2019 • Kirtikumar Futarmal Jain vs. Valencia Corporation, in 2019 SCC Online Guj 3972.
• Kandla Export Corporation and another vs. OCI Corporation and another, (2018) 14 SCC 715.
• State of Maharashtra, through Executive Engineer vs. Atlanta Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 619.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant paragraphs: 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 11.02.2021 (Hearing Convened through Video Conferencing)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH, AT JABALPUR (DIVISION BENCH)
Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi ….…….. Petitioner Vs.
District & Sessions Judge and another ……… Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :
Mr. Deepesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the High Court of M.P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Laid Down ➔
As seen from the language employed in the definition clause of “Court” in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act,1996, the Legislature intended to confer power in respect of the disputes involving arbitration on the highest judicial Court of the District so as to minimize the supervisory role of the Courts in the arbitral process and, therefore, purposely excluded any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.
Thus, in respect of commercial disputes involving arbitration only the Commercial Court of the status of District Judge or Additional District Judge would be the competent court to entertain the matters under Sections 9, 14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act,1996. The impugned order to the extent of classifying the commercial disputes having arbitration as subject matter on the basis of Signature Not mere valuation and conferring powers therefor on the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, would be violative of relevant provisions of law. However, it can be sustained in so far as distribution of the work of commercial disputes as per the value of the claim in cases other than arbitration matters are concerned.
➔
The District Judge by virtue of Sections 7 & 15 of the Civil Courts Act of 1958 would be entitled to distribute such work amongst any of the Additional District Judges under his supervision, but not to any Court of Civil Judge Class-I or Senior Civil Judge, or any Court of Small Causes.
➔
The Court referred:
• Ess Kay Fincorp Limited and ors. vs. Suresh Choudhary and others, AIR 2020 Raj 56.
• Fun N. Fud vs. GLK Associates, 2019 SCC Online Guj 4236.
• Vijay Cotton and Fiber Company Vs. Agarwal Cotton Spinning Private Limited, R/Appeal No. 216 of 2018 decided on 11.02.2019 • Kirtikumar Futarmal Jain vs. Valencia Corporation, in 2019 SCC Online Guj 3972.
• Kandla Export Corporation and another vs. OCI Corporation and another, (2018) 14 SCC 715.
• State of Maharashtra, through Executive Engineer vs. Atlanta Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 619.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant paragraphs: 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 11.02.2021 (Hearing Convened through Video Conferencing)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on this 26th day of February, 2021
Per: Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice
This writ petition has been filed by Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi, who is an advocate practising law at Bhopal, assailing the validity of order dated 20th Signature Not October, 2020 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Section 15(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (for short “the Civil Courts Act”) read with Sections 194, 381(1) & 400 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), distributing civil and criminal business amongst the various Additional District Judges and Subordinate Judges working under his supervision in the District of Bhopal. Challenge in particular is made to Entry No.45 of the aforesaid order vide which the disputes/cases filed under the provisions of Sections 9, 14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”) involving commercial disputes under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (further be called as “the Commercial Courts Act”) of specified value between Rs.3 lac. to Rs.1 crore, have been assigned to the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal.
2. Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allocation/distribution of the judicial work by the District Judge with regard to the commercial disputes filed under Sections 9, 14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration Act to the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I is wholly incompetent inasmuch as such allocation is based on wrongful interpretation of the legal provisions of the Arbitration Act, the Commercial Courts Act as well as the Civil Courts Act. It is contended that the District Judge has passed the aforesaid order in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Sections 15(1) of the Civil Courts Act read with Sections 194, 381(1) and 400 of CrPC. The work distribution circular numbered as Q/EK-01/2020 dated 20.10.2020 at Paras- (C) & (D) of Entry No.45 assigned power to undertake trial of commercial disputes for a specific category as per the Commercial Courts Act to the Court Signature Not of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, having pecuniary jurisdiction over matters valued between Rs. 3 lac. and Rs.1 crore, which also includes the matter that comes under the purview of the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel submitted that the term “specified value” is defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that “specified value” in relation to a commercial dispute is determined on the basis of the subject matter of the respective suit, appeal or application. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act provides that all applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall be tried before any Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction. It is true that the Court of XX Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal has been designated as a Commercial Court vide notification dated 02-03.04.2019 (Annexure-P/2), but the Arbitration Act is a consolidated statute for law relating to any form of arbitration dispute. The Legislature in so providing, intended to streamline the commercial disputes arising out of arbitration in speedy manner, for which purpose the Special Courts have been set up. With that end in view, the Parliament has time and again made amendments in tune with modern day developments.
3. Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel further argued that the term “Court” for the purpose of Arbitration Act has been defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act which inter-alia provides that “Court” means, in cases of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having Signature Not jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
