Calcutta High Court
Asha Jain vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 February, 2017
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA 2689 of 2016
APOT 280 of 2016
CS 340 of 2015
ASHA JAIN
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble MRS. NISHITA MHATRE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY Date : 7th February, 2017.
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S. Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. A. Chowdhury, Adv., Mr.Swaraj Shaw, Adv.
Ms. Aindrila Basu, Adv. and Ms. Jayanti Ghosal, Adv.
..for Appellant Mr. L. K. Chatterjee, Adv.
..for RDSO Mr. L.K.Chatterjee, Adv. with Mrs. A. Banerjee, Adv.
..for Western Railway.
The Court : Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for RDSO, raises a preliminary objection to this Bench hearing the appeal. According to him, this Bench does not have the determination to hear any appeal arising out of an order passed in an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that since hearing of appeals in respect of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the application relating to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been assigned to another Bench, this Bench has no determination to hear the appeal. 2
Mr. Chatterjee unfortunately was not able to demonstrate how the common order, which has been passed on an interlocutory application in the civil suit and an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be divisioned to the other Bench taking up arbitration appeals. He concedes that the determination in respect of appeals from interlocutory is before this Bench. He also concedes that the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court can determine whether to hear any matter pending before any of the Judges of this Court. However, he submits that this appeal should not be heard by this Court.
Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, opposes this prayer of Mr. Chatterjee and submits that an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be decided unless it is filed in a civil suit or in an action brought in a matter which is subject to an arbitration agreement. He, therefore, submits that an appeal against an order passed on such application would have to necessarily be decided by this Court and not the Court to which other applications have been assigned under the Arbitration Act as the application under Section 8 has been decided along with an interlocutory application filed in a suit.
This is an unfortunate objection raised by Mr. Chatterjee and it is evident that it has been raised after 19th December, 2016 when an order granting the stay of the arbitration proceedings was passed. He submits that at that point of time this Division Bench had the determination to hear appeals relating to the Arbitration Act as well as interlocutory appeals and therefore, he could not have raised this objection.
Be that as it may, since a common order has been passed in deciding both the interlocutory application as well as the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and there is no other Bench to which appeals from interlocutory orders have been assigned, it is only this Bench which will have the determination to hear the appeal.
3
Therefore, the appeal is maintainable before this Bench. Mr. Saha seeks an adjournment for two weeks to file reply. List this matter on 27th February, 2017.
The interim order passed on 19th December, 2016 shall continue till then.
(NISHITA MHATRE, ACJ.) (TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.) sm