Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Isc Projects Private Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 9 March, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 370/2021, I.A. Nos. 17061/2021 & 3821/2022
M/S ISC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. E.R. Kumar, Mr. Sameer Parekh,
Ms. Rashi Gupta, Mr. Raghav Bansal,
Mr. Rajat Sinha and Ms. Disha
Sachdeva, Advocates.
versus
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Priyanka
Goswami, Ms. Anusuya Sadhu Sinha
and Mr. Shubhankar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 09.03.2022
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
1. The Respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
2. Before noting the contentions of Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Senior Counsel for the Respondent, who opposes the maintainability of the present petition, it must be mentioned that Petitioner had, at the first instance, impugned the Award before the courts at Chattisgarh; however, the said petition was returned by the said Court, holding that it did not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter in question - as the arbitration Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.03.2022 11:19:26 proceedings were held in Delhi, thus, the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"] should be filed at the place where the arbitration procedings were held.
3. Now as far as objection of maintinbility is concerned, Mr. Mehta primary contention is that the commercial court in Raipur, Chattisgarh has completely mis-applied the law and failed to take note of Section 42 of the Act, in light of the fact that the Petitioner itself had, at the first instance, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the courts in Durg, Chhatisgarh. He therefore, submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd.,1 instant proceedings, have to lie at the Court where the first application under the first part of the Act has been made, which according to him, is the Section 9 petition at Durg courts.
4. During the course of arguments on the aforenoted plea, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the courts at Durg cannot entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Act, as the subject-matter in dispute is above Rs.1 Crores. He submits that the designated commercial court which may entertain petitions relating to subject-matter over Rs. 1 Crores is located at Naya Raipur, and none other.
5. In above circumstances, Mr. Mehta submits that he would like to address the Court with respect to the applicability of Section 42 of the Act, in light of the averments raised by the counsel for the Petitioner for the first Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.03.2022 11:19:26 time and not urged earlier anywhere in the petition or in the written submissions. Time sought for the same is granted.
6. Accordingly, re-notify on 11th April, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 9, 2022 nd 1 BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1585.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.03.2022 11:19:26