Allowed

Esm Dass v. M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd.

Telangana HC24 Dec 2010CRP/2552/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order dismissing an application based on territorial jurisdiction in an arbitration matter, where the court held the main petition should be filed only before the Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16-04-2007 set aside; main O.P.No.2 of 2003 returned to respondent to be presented before appropriate Court.

Esm Dass Vs M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No.2552 of 2007

Date: 24-12-2010

Between:

ESM Dass

……. Petitioner

and M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd.

¶8

……… Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶10

C.R.P.No. 2552 of 2007

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The petitioner herein invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 16-04-2007 dismissing the application filed by him in I.A.No.420 of 2007 in O.P.No.2 of 2003 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein he raised an objection about the jurisdiction of the Court and sought for rejection of the main O.P. itself on that ground.

¶13

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), the O.P. has to be filed only in the principal Court of civil jurisdiction. But, the Court below is Senior Civil Judge’s Court, which will not have any jurisdiction since it is not having principal civil jurisdiction. Whereas as far as the units is concerned, the principal Court of civil jurisdiction is only the Senior Civil Judge’s Court and therefore, the O.P. is liable to be rejected.

¶14

While considering the said objection, the Court below in the order, dated 16-04-2007, curiously observed in the following manner: “8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court is not Principal Court having original jurisdiction is not tenable.

¶15

Though this court is named as Prl Sr. Civil Judge Court, Secunderabad, but so far Secunderabad area is concerned this is the court having original jurisdiction for institution of the Civil suits and the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that only Chief Judge Court at Hyd has original jurisdiction is untenable and misconceived. As such there is no basis to entertain the petition. Point is held in negative.”

¶16

From the above, apparently the learned Senior Civil Judge did not properly understood the scope of Section 34 of the Act nor the expression used therein as to the principal Court of civil jurisdiction. The Court below is only part of a unit, which is Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and therefore, the Court below itself does not constitute as the principal Court of civil jurisdiction. Merely because the Court below is situated at Secunderabad, it itself cannot claim as exclusive principle Court of civil jurisdiction or the exclusive principal Court of original jurisdiction. Necessarily it follows that the O.P. has to be filed only before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶17

The order, dated 16-04-2007 passed in I.A.No.420 of 2007 is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.420 of 2007 is allowed. The Court below is directed to return the main O.P.No.2 of 2003 to the respondent herein for presentation before appropriate Court. No order as to costs.

¶18

________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J

¶19

Date: 24-12-2010 YCR

Esm Dass v. M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esm Dass v. M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Poosarla Sumitra, Vs Poosarla Mangaraju

Bhpathiraju Venkata Narasimha Raju Vs Mutyala Sudhakar

Bhupathiraju Venkata Narasimha Raju, Vs Mutyala Sudhakar

Mohammed Siddiq Mujeeb, Vs Smt. Kaushalya Bai

G. Pratap Reddy Vs World Common Wealth and Vethanta Trust

Pavan Kumar Vyas Vs Annapurna , Pinky