Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

By This Order I Shall Dispose Off The ... vs Anuj Bakshi & Ors. Page 1 Of 4 on 15 March, 2018

     IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
             DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.


                               ARBTN-21/2018


Sethi Leasing & Finance Co.


Versus


Anuj Bakshi & Ors.


                                   ORDER

15.03.2018

1. By this order I shall dispose off the objections on the jurisdiction of District Courts.

2. The facts in brief are that an application is filed by the applicant under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking relief of grant of six months for completing the arbitral proceedings and that directions be issued to the Ld. Arbitrator to expedite the matter on weekly basis and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to appear before the Ld. Arbitrator. The application is supported with arbitration proceedings. Ld. Arbitrator has passed order on 12.02.2018 on the application under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2006 of respondent No.3 and terminated the proceedings.

3. I have heard Sh. Kamal Sethi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

4. Ld. Counsel for applicant has relied upon Judgments in case titled as West Begnal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors. Vs. Impression & Ors- AIR 2016 Cal. 236; Pandey & Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr - Appeal (Civil) No. 4780 of 2006 decided on 10.11.2006 and Goyal MG Gases Private Ltd. Vs. Messer Griesheim GMBH - EFA (OS) 03/2014 decided on 01.07.2014.

5. In this case arbitration proceedings were initiated by the parties by appointing Arbitrator and vide order dated 12.02.2018 Ld. Arbitrator terminated the proceedings. Ld. Counsel for applicant emphasized on Section 2 (e) and submitted that District Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present application. I have gone through the definition of Section 2(e)(i). In my considered opinion, definition cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read with the object and scheme of the complete Act. I would like to refer to very important Section i.e. Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which provides appointment of the Arbitrator. According to this Section the Supreme Court or the High Court or any person or institution designated by such Court can only appoint. The District Court has been excluded explicitly.

6. Section 29A of the Act has been inserted by the amendment in the Act w.e.f. 23.10.2015, whereby time limit for the Arbitral Award has been provided. Initially, it provides one year to the Arbitral Tribunal from the date of entering reference. It, however, provides further six months time with the consent of both the parties. Section 29A(4) provides that unless the Court has either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified ARBTN-21/18 Sethi Leasing Finance Vs. Anuj Bakshi & Ors. Page 2 of 4 extend the period. It has proviso also which gives powers to the Court for reduction of fees. Section 29A(6) of the Act also provides powers to the Court to substitute one or all the Arbitrators.

7. In my considered opinion by reading Section 11 and Section 29A(6) and 29(4), the intention of the legislature to provide the powers for appointment or substitution of Arbitrator and giving directions for expediting the proceedings vests with Supreme Court or High Court or any person or institution so designated by such court and not with the District Court. Therefore, the definition under Section 2(e)(i) is the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction is High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and not District Court.

8. In West Bengal Housing Infrastructure case (supra) reference was decided. However, no issue of interpretation of Section 29A Rule 4 Indian Arbitration Act has been decided. Therefore, this judgment is distinguishable with the facts of the present case. Now coming to the Judgment in case of M/s. Pandey & Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it has been observed that Patna High Court does not exercise any original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, it would not be the Court within the meaning of said provision. However, Delhi High Court exercises the original jurisdiction. Therefore, this judgment is also distinguishable with the facts of the present case. The Judgment in the case of Goyal MG Gases Private Ltd. (supra) deals with the interpretation of 'District Court' in terms of Section 44A of CPC. This judgment does not deal with the interpretation of Section 2(e)(i) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Therefore, it is of no help to the applicant.

9. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the application is not maintainable before this Court and same is hereby dismissed.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court today the 15th March, 2018.

(Sanjay Kumar) Addl. District Judge-02 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.