Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2014 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURTJurisdiction of Court to decided arbitration appeal - whether a challenge to an arbitration award (or arbitral agreement, or arbitral proceeding), wherein jurisdiction lies with more than one court, can be permitted to proceed simultaneously in two different courts - Held that:- term "subject matter of the arbitration" cannot be confused with "subject matter of the suit". The term "subject matter" in Section 2(1)(e) is confined to Part I. It has a reference and connection with the process of dispute resolution. Its purpose is to identify the courts having supervisory control over the arbitration proceedings. Hence, it refers to a court which would essentially be a court of the seat of the arbitration process. In our opinion, the provision in Section 2(1)(e) has to be construed keeping in view the provisions in Section 20 which give recognition to party autonomy. Accepting the narrow construction as projected by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants would, in fact, render Section 20 nugatory - Therefore, the courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process - both the Courts would have jurisdiction, i.e., the Court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the suit is situated and the courts within the jurisdiction of which the dispute resolution, i.e., arbitration is located. It is not open to the appellants to advance such submission before this Court. Firstly, because the appellants had in paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit filed before the High Court, clearly acknowledged the legal position, that both the High Court as also the District Judge, Thane, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, fall within the definition of the term “Court” under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. And secondly, because the impugned order passed by the High Court expressly notices in paragraph 10, that it was admitted by the rival parties before the High Court, that the High Court on the original side, as also the District Judge, Thane, had the jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter. A perusal of Section 42 of Arbitration Act reveals a clear acknowledgment by the legislature, that the jurisdiction for raising a challenge to the same arbitration agreement, arbitral proceeding or arbitral award, could most definitely arise in more than one court simultaneously. To remedy such a situation Section 42 of the Arbitration Act mandates, that the court wherein the first application arising out of such a challenge is filed, shall alone have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute(s), which are filed later in point of time. The above legislative intent must also be understood as mandating, that disputes arising out of the same arbitration agreement, arbitral proceeding or arbitral award, would not be adjudicated upon by more than one court, even though jurisdiction to raise such disputes may legitimately lie before two or more courts. The very fact that the appellants before this Court, have chosen to initiate proceedings against the arbitral award before “principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district” i.e., before the District Judge, Thane, and the respondent before this Court, has raised a challenge to the same arbitral award before the “ordinary original civil side” of the High Court of Bombay, clearly demonstrates, that the underlying principle contained in Section 42 of the Arbitration Act would stand breached, if two different courts would adjudicate upon disputes arising out of the same arbitral award. There can be no doubt, that adjudication of a controversy by different courts, can easily give rise to different conclusions and determinations. Therefore, logic and common sense also require, the determination of all such matters, by one jurisdictional court alone. In the present case, the complication in the matter has arisen only because, the proceedings initiated by the appellants before the District Judge, Thane, and proceedings initiated by the respondent on the “ordinary original civil side” of the High Court of Bombay, were filed on the same day - we uphold the order passed by the High Court requiring the matters to be adjudicated on the “ordinary original civil side” by the High Court of Bombay - Decided against Appellants.
|