Shubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This revisional application has been disposed of on January 9, 2000. After judgement was delivered at the first sitting of the court, at 2 p.m. on January 9, 2000 Mr. Gopal Chandra Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner mentioned the matter before me contending, inter alia, that his first point, that in view of Sec. 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the opposite party no. 1 under Ss. 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 inasmuch as the application under Sec. 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of by the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan. has not been considered by me in my judgement In view of the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Chakraborty, I directed the matter to be listed on January 10, 2001 with notice to the learned Advocates for the opposite party no. 1. On January 10, 2001 when the matter was called on for hearing Mr. Chakraborty filed an affidavit affirmed by his learned Advocate -on -record indicating, inter alia, the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Chakraborty. Without, however, going into the controversy, I have heard Mr. Chakraborty for the petitioner touching Sec. 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Mr. Amal Krishna Saha appearing for the opposite party no. 1 in reply thereto.
(2.) Mr. Chakraborty submitted that the application under Sec. 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the petitioner in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan being Misc. Case no. 182 of 1987 and the same was disposed of by the said court on July 17, 1991 and in view of the provisions of Sec. 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that court alone has the jurisdiction over the arbitration proceeding and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and no other court. Mr. Chakraborty cited the case of Guru Nanak Foundation vs. Rattan Singh and Sons reported in : 1981(4) SCC 634 and drew the attention of the court to the paragraphs 15 to 17 thereof in order to apprise the court about the scope of Sec. 31(4) of the Arbitration Act 1940. Mr. Chakraborty, also, cited the case of Kiran Singh and Ors. vs. Chaman Paswan and Ors. reported in : AIR 1954 SC 340 in order to contend that an order passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity.
(3.) In order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Chakraborty I am to consider the provision of Sec. 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which runs as under: (4) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in. force, where in any reference any application under this Act has been made in a court competent to entertain it, that court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications, arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that court and in no other court.;