Allahabad High Court
Hasmukh Prajapati vs Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. on 17 October, 2019
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33003 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hasmukh Prajapati Respondent :- Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla,Vidhu Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Bidhu Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Arbitration Case No. 26 of 2019 (Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Hasmukh Prajapati) under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1996) arising out of award dated 16.02.2019 passed by Arbitral Tribunal (Sole Arbitrator), New Delhi in Arbitration No. 15 of 2018 (Hasmukh Prajapati Vs. Jai Prakash Associate Ltd.).
3. It transpires from record that Petitioner filed Arbitration Conciliation Application under section 11 (4) No. 8 of 2017 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The aforesaid application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2018. Justice Sunil Ambawani (Retd.) was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. Consequently, Arbitration No. 15 of 2018 came to be registered before Sole Artbitrator, who rendered award dated 16.02.2019 at New Delhi. Against award dated 16.09.2019 an objection under Section 34 of Act, 1996 was filed by respondent Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. before District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that entire arbitral proceedings took place at New Delhi and award was also rendered by Sole Arbitrator at New Delhi, therefore, objection under Section 34 of Act, 1996 cannot be filed before District Judge Ghaziabad. Attention of Court was also invited to paragraph 26 of writ petition wherein, it has been stated that in the proceedings under Section 11(4) of Act 1996 respondents admitted that place of arbitration shall be New Delhi. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that since no cause of action has arisen in U.P., therefore, District Judge, Ghaziabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain objections under Section 34 of Act, 1996.
5. However, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition since all such objections regarding jurisdiction of Court to adjudicate upon objection under Section 34 of Act, 1996 can be raised by petitioner before District Judge, Ghaziabad before whom Arbitration Case No. 26 of 2019, filed by respondent, is pending.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail his remedy before District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in pending proceedings.
Order Date :- 17.10.2019 YK