Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1722 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction to hear and entertain an application - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seeking prohibition/restraint from disturbing, dispossessing or causing any disturbance/obstruction/obstacle in exclusive actual physical possession of the Possessed Leased Premises - HELD THAT:- A non obstante clause is generally appended to a section with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that inspite of the provisions or Act mentioned in the non obstante clause, the provision following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provision in which the non obstante clause occurs. When two or more laws or provisions operate in the same field and each contains a non obstante clause stating that its provision will override those of any other provisions or law, stimulating and intricate problems of interpretation arise. In resolving such problems of interpretation, no settled principles can be applied except to refer to the object and purpose of each of the two provisions, containing a non obstante clause. Two provisions in same Act each containing a non obstante clause, requires a harmonious interpretation of the two seemingly conflicting provisions in the same Act. In this difficult exercise, there are involved proper consideration of giving effect to the object and purpose of two provisions and the language employed in each. From the language of the definition of the term the "Court" under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996 the Parliament apparently intended to confer the power on the highest judicial authority in a district. It must certainly be taken to have been conscious of the object to be achieved while framing the definition of the term "Court". Besides, it intended to minimize the supervisory role of the Courts in the arbitral process. It also intended to add the greatest credibility to this process - It is thus that the Legislature clearly circumscribed and specifically narrowed down the definition of the term "Court" to mean only the Court of the principal civil original jurisdiction in a district and it is only the Court of "District Judge" in a district which is such a "Court" of principal civil jurisdiction. The application preferred by the applicant under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 could have been entertained only by the District Court at Dahod in view of the specific definition of the term 'Court' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1996 to be read with the Section 11 of the Act, 2015. Application allowed.
|