Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURTInjunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from presenting total number of thirty three cheques for collection/encashment pending disposal of the arbitiral proceedings - agreement styled as "Build, Own and Operate basis" - maintainability of the original application in this court contending that the application is barred under section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Held that:- Though notice was taken in the petition filed by the first respondent herein before the Delhi High Court, namely Original Miscellaneous Petition No.236/2012, without even raising objection regarding the jurisdiction, the application seems to have been resisted on merits. Hence the contention of the the first respondent that the applicant herein having failed to raise objection regarding the jurisdiction of Delhi court to entertain the said Original Miscellaneous Petition, is not entitled to question the jurisdiction of the said court in the present original application filed in this court has got to be countenanced. Furthermore, the comity of courts will require this court not to venture to go into the question whether the Delhi High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the original miscellaneous petition No.236/2012 pending on its file. If this court ventures to do so, it will amount to usurping the powers of the Delhi High Court to decide on its jurisdiction. Admittedly, the said Original Miscellaneous Petition, which was filed earlier in point of time regarding the dispute forming the subject-matter of arbitration is pending on the file of the Delhi High Court. Unless and until the Delhi High Court rejects the petition holding that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain that petition, the bar provided under section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall stand attracted. This court comes to the conclusion that the present original application filed by the applicant under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be maintained in view of the fact that similar petition O.M.P.No.236 of 2012 filed earlier on the file of the Delhi High Court by the first respondent herein is pending. Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a bar for entertaining such an application by any other court. Hence the present original application is liable to be dismissed holding that it is not maintainable & dismissed In case the petition filed before the Delhi High Court is dismissed at a later point of time on the ground of want of jurisdiction, then this order shall not be an impediment for the applicant to file a fresh petition. There shall be no order as to cost.
|