Renasonic E Solution Ltd. vs Voltas Ltd. and Another

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The respondents immediately on service on first day itself i.e. on 31st October, 2008 had contended that the court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction competent to entertain the present petition was not this Court and this petition ought to have been filed in the District Court. The counsel for the petitioner had then sought adjournment to consider the matter.

The counsel for the petitioner has today relied upon an office order dated 22nd August, 2003 of this Court transferring the pending suits and other proceedings on the original side of this Court up to the value of Rs. 20 lacs to the district/subordinate courts except inter alia arbitration cases where Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is attracted. It is argued that in the present case the arbitrator was appointed vide order of this Court u/s 11(6) of the Act and for this reason this petition u/s 34 of the Act shall also lie before this Court.

The question still is whether Section 42 covers within its ambit an application u/s 11(6) of the Act.

The said question is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Rodemadan India Limited Vs. International Trade Expo center Limited, has held in para 8 of the judgment that the power u/s 11(6) of the Act is the power of a designate referred to under the Section and not that of the Court; albeit it has now been held to have judicial characteristics by reason of the judgment in S.B.P. and Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another, .

It was further held in para 25 of the judgment that neither the Chief Justice nor his designate u/s 11(6) is a "court" as contemplated u/s 2(1)(e) of the Act and further that a bar of jurisdiction u/s 42 is only intended to apply to a "court" as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

The said judgment of the Apex Court was followed by Single Judge of this Court in UOI v. S.R. Constructions Co. (144) 2007 DLT 580 and it was held that mere passing of an order u/s 11(6) of the Act by this Court would not vest this Court with the exclusive jurisdiction u/s 42 of the Act to entertain the objections u/s 34 of the Act, if otherwise this Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, it being the admitted position that the claims before the arbitrator in the present case were of less than Rs. 20 lacs, the subject matter of the arbitration, had the same been the subject of the suit, would have been entertainable by a Court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction and not by this Court, the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction whereof is in excess of Rs. 20 lacs.

Accordingly, as requested by the counsel for the petitioner, the petition along with the original documents, if any, is ordered to be returned to the counsel for the petitioner in accordance with law. The counsels inform that the District Judge having jurisdiction to entertain the petition would be the District Judge (South). Accordingly, it is directed that the parties to appear before the District Judge (South) on 8th May, 2009 by which date the petitioner to take back the petition and the original documents, if any, from this Court and to file the same before the District Judge (South). If either of the parties fails to appear before the District Judge (South) on the date fixed, notice be issued to that party.

The certified copy of the petition and the original documents be prepared in an expeditious manner.