RAIPUR DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SARIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
LAWS(CHH)-2005-3-2
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on March 24,2005

RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
SARIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 13-3-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Raipur in Suit No. 2-B/2000 whereby learned Additional District Judge has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner herein that the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that a dispute had arisen between the parlies and therefore, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who passed the arbitral award dated 11-12-1998 in favour of the respondent herein. Against the said award the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred as to "the Act of 1996") in the Court of District Judge, Raipur for setting aside the said award. However, learned District Judge transferred that application to the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge) Raipur, which was registered as Suit No. 2-B/2000. The petitioner herein by amending his pleadings challenged the jurisdiction of learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Raipur to deal with that application on the ground that learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application filed under section 34 of the Act of 1996. Amongst other issues. Issue No. 1 was framed as preliminary issue objection regarding the jurisdiction and same was decided by learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 13-3-2002 against the petitioner herein holding that Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
(3.) The petition of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 2(e) & 42 of the Act of 1996 only the District Judge which is the Principal Civil Court of District, has the jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Moreover the said application was filed before that Court, therefore, that Court was not entitled to transfer the said application to learned Additional District Judge. Therefore, the order impugned passed by learned Additional District Judge is perverse, illegal and contrary to law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.