Dismissed

Premlaxmi and Co. v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2012ARBP/571/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to set aside an award where the cause of action arose at Ratnagiri, not Mumbai. The court distinguished Section 11 from Section 34 regarding the competent 'Court' and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction; liberty granted to file application for consideration of time limitation.

Premlaxmi and Co. Vs Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 208-arbp-571-2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.571 OF 2009

¶4

Premlaxmi And Co. ..Petitioner.

¶5

vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. And 3 ors. ..Respondents

¶6

Ms.Shilpa Kapil for Petitioner. Ms. Asha Bhambwani for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE :- 29TH OCTOBER, 2012.

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶9

Called out from final hearing board.

¶10

2 The petitioners – original claimants have challenged Award dated 3rd April 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the agreement between the parties by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Arbitration Act”).

¶11

3 Admittedly, there is no specific clause of Court jurisdiction. Merely because an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the petitioner and whereby an arbitral tribunal was constituted that itself cannot give jurisdiction to this Court to

¶12

srk 1/4

¶13

2 208-arbp-571-2009

¶14

entertain Section 34 petition as filed.

¶15

4 Admittedly, basic cause of action arose at Ratnagiri as the construction was of a tunnel at Ratnagiri. Section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act deals with the term “Court”. Therefore, the Court at Ratnagiri has jurisdiction to deal with and entertain such application against the award, though passed by the arbitral tribunal by the consent of parties by holding meetings in Mumbai. The place of arbitration in Mumbai is not sufficient to decide jurisdiction of this Court to entertain Section 34 application. The submission that in view of Section 42 and as admittedly Section 11 application was filed in this Court, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition is unacceptable. The Court as contemplated in Section 2(e) and Section 42 cannot be compared with and cannot mean the Hon. Chief Justice and/or the designated Judge, as contemplated under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Both are different and distinct entity.

¶16

5 Section 34 itself, therefore, needs to be read with Section 2(e) which means the Court where cause of action arose and/or subject matter of the arbitration situated. Therefore, when admittedly the construction work was at Ratnagiri, the “Court” at Ratnagiri has jurisdiction to entertain such petition. The Apex court in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Krishna Travel Agency [(2008) 6 SCC 745] has dealt with the aspect in following terms:

¶17

“10. We further reiterate that the view taken by this

¶18

srk 2/4

¶19

3 208-arbp-571-2009

¶20

Court in National Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Pressteel and Fabrications (P) Ltd. [(2004) 1 SCC 540] and State of Goa v. Western Builders [(2006) 6 SCC 239)] is the correct approach and we reaffirm the view that in case any appointment of arbitrator is made by the High Court under Section 11(6), the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction remains the District Court and not the High Court. And likewise, if an appointment of the arbitrator is made by this Court, in that case also, the objection can only be filed before the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act. Thus, in this view of the matter, we hold that the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court should entertain the award given by the arbitrator appointed by this Court and all objections to it should be disposed of by this Court is unacceptable and consequently, the prayer made in the application is rejected.”

¶21

6 This Court also, though prior to the Constitution Bench decision in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. referring to Section 42 read with Section 2(e) taken the view, which covered the present facts and circumstances also in favour of the preliminary objection. The decision given by this Court (by D.K.Deshmukh,J., as he then was) in Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. [2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 425] has dealt with this facet in detail. I am in agreement with the same. Even from the plain reading of these two

¶22

srk 3/4

¶23

4 208-arbp-571-2009

¶24

Sections, I am inclined to accept the submission by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that this Court has no jurisdiction. The arbitration petition is, therefore, without expressing anything on merits, disposed off as not maintainable.

¶25

6 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further submitted to consider the aspect of limitation at this stage itself. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act provides the procedure in view of the restricted period of limitation. Therefore, I am inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to take out appropriate application for the same. The Court to consider such application and petition in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of as not maintainable. All points are kept open. Parties to take steps accordingly. No cost.

¶26

srk 4/4

Premlaxmi and Co. v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premlaxmi and Co. v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. - U60230MH1998PTC112960

Guruda Keepers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S.Pharma Rinnis (P)Ltd

Ravello Advertising Pvt.Ltd Vs

B.I.F.R. Vs M/S. Cosmos Rubber Works Ltd. (Crwl)

Rahul L. Singhvi Vs Indira Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Premlaxmi and Co. Vs Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.