Amarchand Sharma through Krishan Dev Sharma, Proprietor vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Viney Mittal, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-M/s. Amarchand Sharma. The grievance is to the order dated 30.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby an application filed by the present appellant u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been dismissed on the ground that the Chandigarh Court had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

I have heard Shri Naresh Markanda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Deepali Puri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at some length. In my considered view, the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge is not legally sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is an admitted case between the parties that the contract had been awarded to the claimant-appellant by the Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone. On a subsequent occasion, there was some dispute between the parties and an application u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the claimant-appellant before the Chandigarh Court. Once the Chandigarh Court had been seized of the matter on an occasion, then it is not understandable as to how the present petition filed on behalf of the claimant-appellant could be treated to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the order dated August 30, 2003 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on 30.01.2004.