Calcutta High Court
Dalim Kumar Chakraborty vs Smt. Gouri Biswas & Anr on 16 February, 2018
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-4
APO No. 33 of 2018
GA No. 439 of 2018
in
AP No. 994 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
DALIM KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Versus
SMT. GOURI BISWAS & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA Date : 16th February, 2018.
Appearance:
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arunava Maiti, Adv.
Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya, Adv.
The Court : The appeal is directed against an order dated November 22, 2017 by which both sides' challenge to an arbitral award was not entertained by the arbitration Court on the ground that this was not the appropriate Court to receive the challenge.
It is not in dispute that a previous petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was carried by one of the parties to the 2 District Judge, Alipore. In view of the mandate in Section 42 of the said Act of 1996, once a petition under Part-I of the Act of 1996 pertaining to an arbitration agreement is carried to a particular court and such court entertains it and there is no objection as to its jurisdiction, all subsequent petitions under Part - I of the Act of 1996 pertaining to the same arbitration agreement have to be carried only to such court.
It may be emphasised that Section 42 covers not only a particular arbitral reference but the arbitration agreement itself. It is possible that several references arise out of the same arbitration agreement; but once a court is identified out of the several courts that may have had authority to entertain a petition under Part - I of the Act of 1996 in terms of Section 2(1)(e) thereof, it is only such court to which the subsequent petitions pertaining to the same arbitration agreement can be carried to.
Sections 8 and 11 of the Act of 1996 are beyond the purview of Section 42 thereof. The very nature of the provision of Section 8 in such Act is that Section 42 cannot apply thereto. Indeed, the expression used in Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is "judicial authority" and not "court". Section 11 of the Act has a jurisdictional mechanism within itself. However, a request under Section 11 of the Act has to be carried to the Chief Justice of a High Court or his designate.
But that would not imply that once Section 11 of the said Act has been invoked in respect of an arbitration agreement, subsequent petitions under Part - I of the said Act have also to be carried to the relevant High Court. There are only a few of the 24 High Courts in the country that have original jurisdiction.
The appellant here refers to an order dated August 2, 2016 by which the appellant's request under Section 11 of the Act was dealt with by the designate of 3 the Chief Justice of this Court appointing an arbitrator. As aforesaid, the situs of a request has no bearing on the operation of Section 42 of the Act of 1996.
The appellant has referred to a judgment reported at AIR 2015 SC 260. The proposition laid down in such judgment is completely contrary to the legal point attempted to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant and supports the view expressed hereinabove.
Accordingly, the order impugned cannot be faulted in it refusing to entertain the petitions challenging the arbitral award.
A further point is taken that the applications have been dismissed without being returned to be carried to the appropriate forum. It is evident from the order impugned that the right of the parties to challenge the arbitral award was preserved by such order and, indeed, the parties were permitted to take back the original arbitral awards filed after furnishing copies thereof.
APO No.33 of 2018 and GA No.439 of 2018 are dismissed as utterly unmeritorius with costs assessed at Rs.5000/.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) kc