O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”) was filed by the appellant in the District Court at Udaipur, Rajasthan. The respondent purported to move an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) for rejection of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The application for rejection of the petition under Section 34 was not entertained by the Section 34 Court. Therefore, a revision application was preferred by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court, based on the fact that the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was filed in the High Court of Delhi, held that the Court at Udaipur will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Signature Not Verified However, what is ignored by the High Court is that a petition under Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2025.03.19 ReasoSn:ection 9 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the appellant in a Court in Udaipur in which interim relief was granted which was later on stayed. The petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was filed subsequent to that. We are surprised to note that an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the CPC was entertained by the High Court by proceeding on an erroneous assumption that the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was a plaint.

This approach of the High Court was erroneous.

5. Therefore, in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Associated Contractors¹ the High Court has committed an error by rejecting the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order dated 5^th April, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Now, the concerned Court will proceed to decide the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in accordance with law. All contentions on merits therein are kept open.

6. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the above terms.

..........................J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

..........................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 04, 2025.

(2015) 1 SCC 32 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 40245/2019 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-07-2019 in SBCR No. 55/2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur]

BOHRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Petitioner(s)

VERSUS INDIAN POTASH LIMITED Respondent(s)

(IA No. 214477/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 214478/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS AND IA No. 214479/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 04-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravindra Kumar Raizada, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Khattar, Adv.

Mr. Divij Andley, Adv.

Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv.

Ms. Divya Roy, AOR For Respondent(s): Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Manish Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv.

Ms. Aditi Singh, Adv.

Mr. Hari Sahteshwar, Adv.

Mr. Dheeraj Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.

(ASHISH KONDLE) (AVGV RAMU)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

[THE SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]