Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Small Tools Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. & Ors., 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 629 and in particular paragraphs 23, 26, 34, 37, 44 and 48 and would submit that since the petitioner has prayed for possession of the immoveable property which is situated outside Greater Mumbai, the present petition is not maintainable without obtaining the leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

37. Insofar as submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the present proceedings are in the nature of suit for land and in view of the mortgaged property having situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court, without obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose off the present petition is concerned, in my view the present proceedings filed under section 9 of the Kvm ARBP1118.15 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be equated with a suit for land. In my view the arbitration petition under section 9 cannot be considered as a suit but is a proceedings inter alia praying for interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The final reliefs are claimed by the petitioner before the learned arbitrator by filing statement of claim. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondents in case of Hatimbhai Hassanally (supra), judgment of this court in case of Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.(supra), judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Cityscape Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra), judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and thus do not assist the case of the respondents.