Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 94 - HC - Indian LawsInterim measures, etc. by Court - Foreign arbitral award - petitioner seeks interim reliefs pending enforcement and execution of a foreign arbitral award - ‘whether the ‘court’ as referred to in Section 9 of the Act in the case of international commercial arbitrations which take place outside India, is a ‘court’ as defined under Section 2(1)(e) or as defined in the Explanation to Section 47 of the Act? - Held that:- If the interpretation of the provisions of Section2(1)(e)(ii) of the Act as sought to be placed on behalf of the respondent is accepted, it would bring about an anomalous situation defeating the intent of the legislative provisions, as derived from a cumulative reading of the amending provisions as noted above. The purpose and object of the amended provisions of the 2015 Act must certainly prevail over a narrow interpretation which would defeat the purpose and object of the 2015 Amendment Act. The petitioner who holds monetary awards against the respondent would be prevented from approaching the court for interim reliefs where the assets of the respondent are available within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Court would have territorial jurisdiction if the monies/the bank accounts are located within the jurisdiction of the Court. The legislature would not envisage a situation that a party can invoke jurisdiction of the Court to enforce a monetary award under Section 47 and 49 of the Act, however, for any relief of the nature Section 9 interalia contemplates the jurisdiction of the same Court would not be available. This would create a complete incongruity in giving effect to the provisions of Section 9 in a situation as in the present case and defeat the legislative intent. In the above circumstances, the submissions as urged on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner cannot seek a relief in respect of the bank account at Pune, also cannot be accepted, as the definition of ‘Court’ under ‘Explanation’ to Section 47 would confer jurisdiction on this High Court as the assets/bank accounts of the respondent are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and not the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as provided in the pre-amended provisions. Significantly now both the amended provisions namely Section 2(1)(e) and ‘Explanation’ to Section 47 respectively confer jurisdiction only on the concerned High Court. Thus in the present case it would be the ‘Court’ as defined in ‘Explanation’ to Section 47 which would be the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 petition, and this Court would accordingly have jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
|