- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 17.3.2012 passed by District Judge, Bulandshahr in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 392 of 2011 whereby the application of appellant under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (would be referred to as 'Act' hereinafter) had been rejected. It was alleged in the application that pursuant to order for supply of 7.5 lacs Exercise Books/copies, the appellant received an order from Zila Anaupcharik Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda vide letter No. 512-14 dated 8.11.1997. The appellant complied with the order, but he did not receive the amount of the stationery supplied by him. Later on the officers of respondents raised objection about the quality of the goods and asked the appellant to take back the goods. The appellant referred the matter for arbitration after notice dated 23.11.1999 to the respondents to statutory Arbitral Tribunal U.P. Industry Felicitation Council, Kanpur to resolve the dispute and award the amount of bills together with interest for supply of goods. The arbitral proceedings commenced as Claim No. 23 of 2000, R.S. Singhal v. Zila Anaupcharik Shiksha Adhikari and others, and simultaneously the appellant filed an application under section 9 of the Act before District Judge, Bulandshahr, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 611 of 1999, but it was dismissed in default on 30.5.2007. Aggrieved the appellant filed appeal under section 37 of the Act before the District Judge (Misc. case No. 83 of 2008), which is pending. The appellant as interim measure prayed for direction to the respondents either to deposit in Court a sum of ' One crore in lump sum in the form of Bank F.D.R. or as Bank guarantee in security of the amount that may be awarded in arbitration proceedings. The respondents filed objections challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the work order for supply of goods was given in Gonda and goods were supplied there, so the Court at Bulandshahr has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties Counsel has rejected the application for want of jurisdiction. Aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal.
(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order as also the papers filed by the appellant alongwith the memo of appeal.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned District Judge was not justified in concluding that the Court at Bulandshahr has no jurisdiction to entertain the case for want of territorial jurisdiction. His contention is that part of cause of action had arisen in district Bulandshahr where the firm of the appellant is situated and the appellant received the order for supply of stationery items at Bulandshahr. However, we find that the appellant contended in his application under section 9 of the Act filed before the learned Trial Court that earlier also an application for the same relief was filed by the appellant which was registered as Misc. Case No. 611 of 1999, but it was dismissed in default on 30.5.2007 and its appeal under section 37 of the Act is pending as Misc. Case No. 83 of 2008 before the Trial Court. This contention appears to be misconceived. Section 37 of the Act provides for filing an appeal against the orders passed on application under section 9 of the Act or order passed on objections under section 34 etc. before the Appellate Court. No appeal could have been filed against the order dated 30.5.2007 before the same Court. However, the fact remains that earlier also the appellant has filed application under section 9 of the Act before the Trial Court, which was dismissed in default on 30.5.2007. It may be possible that restoration application of the appellant is pending as Misc. Case No. 83 of 2008 before the learned Trial Court. If restoration application of the appellant seeking to set aside the order dated 30.5.2007 dismissing his application under section 9 of the Act was pending, then how could he file another application for same relief? Surprisingly the learned District Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter and proceeded to decide the application under section 9 of the Act, which was not maintainable at all. In this regard the learned Counsel for the appellant could not offer any explanation to our query during the course of arguments. In these circumstances, it is held that instant application of the appellant under section 9 of the Act was not maintainable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.;