- (1.) AN agreement was executed on 24-02-2000 between U. P. Jal Vidyut Nigam, Lucknow, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the respondent for the construction work relating to Penstock, ANchor and Saddle blocks and Power House Building at Pilangad, M. H. S. (2x1125 kw) in District Uttarkashi.
(2.) DISPUTES having arisen between the parties with respect to the aforesaid agreement and the execution of the aforesaid work, on 27-09-2005, this Court in-Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act for short) appointed Sri Justice I. P. Vashistha (Retd.) as the single Member Arbitral Tribunal. Later on, Sri Justice I. P. Vashistha was re placed by Sri Justice V. N. Mehrotra by an order dated 23-12- 2005 passed by this Court. The learned arbitrator gave his Award on 28-05-2007. Whereas the petitioners herein dissatisfied with the Award, filed an ap plication U/s 34 of 1996 Act in the Court at Dehradun, the respondent herein also dissatisfied with the Award, filed an ap plication U/s 34 of 1996 Act on 24-08-2007 in the Court of District Judge, Uttarkashi. In the proceedings initiated by the respondent U/s 34 (Supra) be fore the District Judge, Uttarkashi, the petitioners herein raised a preliminary objection -to the effect that District Judge, Uttarkashi did not have jurisdic tion in the matter and that jurisdiction in the matter was vesting in the District Court at Dehradun only. Vide the im pugned order dated 26-03-2008. the learned District Judge, Uttarkashi has overruled the aforesaid objection raised by the petitioners with respect to juris diction and has held that the District Court, Uttarkashi indeed has jurisdiction in this matter. Aggrieved, the petitioners have ap proached this Court by filing the present petition Under Article 227 of the Con stitution of India against the aforesaid impugned order.
(3.) MR. Vinay Kumar, learned coun sel appearing for the petitioners took me through the agreement dated 24-02-2000 executed between the parties. Ac cording to him, because the office of the General Manager of the petitioner Cor poration is at Dehradun and because at Dehradun certain decisions had to be taken, the Courts at Dehradun alone have jurisdiction in the matter and the Courts at Uttarkashi did not have any jurisdiction in the matter at all. He has also referred to Section 42 of the 1996 Act. According to him, because Section 34 application was filed by the petition ers prior in point of time before the Dis trict Judge, Dehradun, in terms of Sec tion 34 of the 1996 Act, all subsequent applications and proceedings including the Section 34 Application by the re spondent, ought to have been filed at Dehradun. Under Section 34 of 1996 Act, recourse to a Court against an arbitral Award may be made only by filing an application for setting aside the arbitral Award. Sub-Section (2) of Section 34 of 1996 Act gives jurisdiction to a Court to set aside an arbitral Award upon any one or more of the grounds mentioned therein. "court" has been defined in Section 2 (e) of 1996 Act, which reads thus : 2. (e) "court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having ju risdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil Court or a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes. ";