Uttarakhand High Court
Imsi (India )Pvt. Ltd. A Limited Company vs Spanco Bpo Service Ltd. A Limited ... on 5 April, 2013
Author: B.S. Verma
Bench: B.S. Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 156 of 2013
IMSI (India )Pvt. Ltd. a Limited Company, duly incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
2410, Michigan Ave, Doon Express Business Park, Subhash
Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand India-248001, through its
Authorized Signatory Mr. Mukesh Kukreti, S/o Sri M.S. Kukreti
- Appellant.
Versus
Spanco BPO Service Ltd. a Limited Company incorporated
under the companies Act, 1956, having its registered office
at B-22 Krishna Bhawan, B.S. Deoshi Marg, Deonar,
Mumbai-400 088, through its Authorized Signatory
Mr. Kaushik Kumar Das S/o Sri K.K. Das - Respondent.
Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)
(Stay Application No. 3161/2013) Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant.
This appeal, U/S 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is directed against the order dated 14-3-2013 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun/in-charge District Judge, Dehradun and order dated 19-3-2013, passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No. 55 of 2013 Spanco BPO Service Ltd. Vs. IMSI(India) Pvt. Ltd., passed on the application moved by the respondent U/S 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main ground of challenge is that the learned District Judge has committed a manifest error of law by transferring the application to learned 2nd Addl. District Judge on the ground that since he has passed earlier order dated 14.3.2013 therefore the application 12-D and 10-C/2 were transferred for hearing and disposal to 2nd A.D.J. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant raised the ground in appeal that 2nd A.D.J. Dehradun was not having jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 14-3-2013 and 19-3-2013 in view of Section 2(1)(e) and section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since District Judge, Dehradun is the only authority to entertain the application irrespective of its merits.
2In view of judgment passed by this Court in M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd. versus State and others reported in 2013 (1) U.D., 265,the only court is of District Judge which is having jurisdiction to entertain the application U/S 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The order impugned dated 14-3-2013 has been passed by the 2nd A.D.J. in the capacity of in charge District Judge. The learned District Judge had transferred the applications 12-D and 10-C/2 to 2nd A.D.J. on the ground that the order in the application was passed by him. Thereafter the 2nd A.D.J. had passed the order dated 19.3.2013 granting interim order. So order dated 19-3-2013 is concerned that cannot be passed by the Addl. D.J. as has been held that only principal Court is the District Judge. So far as earlier order dated 14- 3-2013 is concerned it is to be scrutinized whether in charge D.J. may pass order on application U/S 9 of the Act or not. Therefore reply is required.
Admit.
Issue notice to respondent.
List thereafter.
Till next date of listing the operation of impugned orders dated 14.3.2013 and 19-3-2013 shall remain stayed.
The stay application stands disposed of.
ISB (B.S. Verma, J.)
05-04-2013