1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Order reserved on 08-05-2018

Order delivered on 12-10-2018

WP227 No. 299 of 2018

1.

A Suo Moto Taken Writ Petition

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Law And Legislative

Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

Appearance :

This is an office reference.

Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, Shri Pramod Verma, Sr.

Advocate, Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate and Shri Sunil

Otwani, Advocate, appeared as amicus curiae.

FULL BENCH

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

C A V Order

The following order of the Court was delivered by

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1.

This suo moto petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is a reference made to the Full Bench by Hon’ble the Chief

Justice on a request made by the District & Sessions Judge,

Durg, in its memo dated 5-3-2018 to the effect that 859

Arbitration Cases are pending before the District & Sessions

2

Judge i.e. the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction which

cannot be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge(s)

functioning within his jurisdiction in view of the judgment

rendered by this Court in the matter of Raipur Development

Authority v M/s Sarin Construction Company, Raipur (AIR

2006 Chhattisgarh 12), therefore, requesting the High Court to

issue guidelines for transfer of the pending Arbitration cases.

2.

Hon’ble the Chief Justice has, therefore, exercised the power

under Rule 28 (3) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007

to place the following issue for consideration before the Full

Bench :

“Whether applications for execution of

Arbitration Awards under Section 36 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and

other applications under that Act which

could lie before the Principal Civil Court of

Original Jurisdiction can be considered by

any of the District Judges or Additional

District Judges of that Principal Civil Court

of Original Jurisdiction ?”

3.

On 16-4-2018 we took up the matter for consideration and

appointed Dr. N.K. Shukla & Shri Pramod Verma, both learned

Senior Advocates and Shri Prafull N. Bharat & Shri Sunil Otwani,

both learned Advocates to assist this Court as amicus curiae,

who argued the matter at length on different dates.

4.

Referring to various provisions contained under the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act, 1996’), the

Chhattisgarh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act, 1958’),

3

the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short 'the Act, 1897') and the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), learned

amicus curiae have argued that the majority of the judicial

pronouncements by different High Courts have taken the view

that the Court of Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction

would include the Court of ADJ.

Submissions :

5.

Dr. N.K. Shukla & Shri Pramod Verma, learned senior

Advocates, Shri Prafull N. Bharat & Shri Sunil Otwani, learned

Advocates appearing as amicus curiae would place reliance on

various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High

Courts and also referred to the statutory provisions.

6.

Learned amicus curiae have argued that in the matter of M/s

Sarin Construction Company (supra), the Single Bench of this

Court has relied on the judgments rendered by the Allahabad

High Court in M/s I.T.I. Ltd. Allahabad and others v District

Judge, Allahabad and Others (AIR 1998 All 313) and the

Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Vinod

Kumar Jajodia and others v Brij Bhushan Agarwal (1993

MPLJ 603), however, both the matters were on different points.

According to them, High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Madhya

Pradesh and Kerala have taken the view that the Court of

District Judge includes t