Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1939 - PATNA HIGH COURTJurisdiction to hear the present case - Restraint from invoking/encashing the bank guarantee - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- It is evident that on the date, the District Judge, Patna transferred the case to the court of 5th Additional District Judge, Patna - There are no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that once the District Judge transferred the case to the court of learned 5th Additional District Judge, Patna who has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge, the order cannot be faulted on this ground alone. Since the statutory court was already notified by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act and it was the District Judge posted in the Civil Court at Divisional Headquarter alone and no other District Judge or Additional District Judge. Hence, the court below had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Therefore, impugned order is fit to be set aside on this ground alone. Misconduct of proceedings - material irregularity - HELD THAT:- The impugned order would not reveal that what was the submission of the appellant before the court below. The appellant had raised the issue of locus of the respondent herein to bring the case. Appellant had raised the issue of jurisdiction of the court below to pass the order but nothing has been discussed in the impugned order - There is no dispute that every judicial order should contain objective reasons supported by material on the record and should also depict that there is no violation of natural justice. The impugned order suffers from aforesaid infirmity, hence, the same is not sustainable on this ground also. Whether the respondent had no locus to bring the case for arbitration or to file application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? - HELD THAT:- Submission of the appellant is that M/s. SPML Infra Limited was the real party and the respondent herein was a proforma party as per the agreement for the reason that only a successful bidder could have been appointed as distribution franchisee and successful bidder was M/s. SPML Infra Limited and M/s. SPML Infra Limited had undertaken its liability under the agreement. Therefore, in absence of M/s. SPML Infra Limited, no order could have been passed or should have been passed by the court below. The matter is remitted back to the Commercial Court, Patna to hear and pass necessary order according to law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|