Dismissed¶17

Sudipto Sen v. Bandhan Bank and Ors.

Calcutta HC25 Mar 2025FMAT/248/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jurisdiction under Section 42 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; exclusive jurisdiction triggered by prior Section 9 application before a different court even if dismissed for default and not adjudicated on merits; Section 34 challenge to arbitral award dismissed for want of jurisdiction; appeal FMAT 248 of 2024 by Sudipto Sen vs Bandhan Bank Limited and others dismissed on principle of XLI Rule 11 CPC; CAN 1 of 2022 dismissed without costs; decided 25.03.2025; bench Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. and Uday Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

Under Section 42 of the 1996 Act, the relevant factor for exclusive jurisdiction is the presentation of a prior application before a competent court, not the nature or manner of its dismissal; accordingly, dismissal of the prior Section 9 application for default does not prevent Section 42 from operating.

Sudipto Sen Vs Bandhan Bank and Ors. — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the court entertaining the appellant's Section 34 challenge to the arbitral award had jurisdiction under Section 42 of the 1996 Act, given that an earlier Section 9 application had been presented before a different court, where that earlier application was dismissed for default and not adjudicated on merits.

¶11

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Since the appellant himself had made the Section 9 application before a different court, it is that prior court which has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and subsequent applications, and not the court which passed the impugned order.

¶15

Key takeaways

In consequence, there is no scope of interference in the appeal.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FMAT 248 of 2024 (IA No: CAN 1 of 2022): Appeal by Sudipto Sen against the dismissal of his challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which had been rejected for lack of jurisdiction by invoking Section 42 of the 1996 Act because the appellant had earlier filed a Section 9 application before a different court. Arguing that the Section 9 application was dismissed for default and never adjudicated on merits, the appellant contended Section 42 ought not to apply. The Court held that the operative factor under Section 42 is the presentation of the prior application before a competent court, not the manner of its dismissal; since the appellant himself had filed the Section 9 application elsewhere, the prior court alone has jurisdiction and not the court passing the impugned order. Finding no scope of interference, the Court dismissed the appeal on the principle of XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and consequentially dismissed CAN 1 of 2022 without costs. Coram: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. and Uday Kumar, J. Decision dated 25.03.2025.

¶1

AD-31 Ct No.16 25.03.2025 TN

¶2

FMAT 248 of 2024 IA No: CAN 1 of 2022

¶3

Sudipto Sen

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Bandhan Bank Limited and others

¶6

Mr. Rajnil Mukherjee, Ms. Satabdi Dey, Mr. Subhas Das

¶7

….for the appellant

¶8

Ms. Soni Ojha, Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee

¶9

….for the respondent nos.1 & 2

¶10

The present appeal has been preferred against an order whereby the appellant’s challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Act”) has been dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by invoking Section 42 of the 1996 Act, in view of an earlier application under Section 9 of the said Act having been presented before a different court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the said application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was dismissed for default and, as such, was not adjudicated on merits. Hence, Section 42 ought not to be invoked.

¶12

However, we do not find any substance in such contention, since the relevant factor within the contemplation of Section 42 is not the nature of the dismissal of a prior application but the presentation of the prior application before a competent court.

¶13

¶14

Section 42 of the 1996 Act, pertaining to jurisdiction, provides that where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under the said Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.

¶15

In the present case, since the appellant himself had made an application under Section 9 before a different court, it is the said prior court which has jurisdiction, and not the court which passed the impugned order.

¶16

Accordingly, there is no scope of interference in the appeal.

¶17

Hence, FMAT 248 of 2024 is dismissed on the principle of XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2022 also stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶18

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶19

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Sudipto Sen v. Bandhan Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudipto Sen v. Bandhan Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijit Mridha & Ors. Vs Radhey Shyam Sarkar & Ors.

Aparna Das and Anr. Vs Namit Kr. Das

Achin Ghosh and Anr. Vs Debasish Sengupta in Place of Jyotirmoyee Sengupta(Since Deceased) and Anr.

Susmita Gupta & Anr. Vs Krishna Gupta & Ors.

Pratip Parua and Ors. Vs Partha Pratim Parua and Ors.

Iisco Steel Plant Burnpur Vs Payel Enterprises and Anr.