- (1.) The jurisdiction of the Court of the learned District Judge at Jalpaiguri to entertain the opposite parties' application for setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and consequently the Court's jurisdiction to issue notice calling upon the petitioner to appear in the said proceeding, have been challenged in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Mr. Bachwat, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of this petition, submitted that not only the appointment of the Arbitrator was made by this Court but also several other proceedings, such as proceeding under Sections 9, 31, 38 and 39 of the said Act, were entertained and disposed of by this Court with the participation of both the parties. More so, an appeal was also filed by the opposite parties challenging the interim order passed in connection with the petitioner's application under Section 9 of the said Act.
(3.) Mr. Bachwat further contended that though apparently the principal Civil Court of the district of Jalpaiguri had otherwise jurisdiction to entertain the said application in view of the provision as contained in Section 34 read with Section 2(3) of the said Act, but still then because of the incorporation of the non-obstante clause in Section 42 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of the principal Civil Court of the district of Jalpaiguri to entertain such an application has been excluded, as the parties had already chosen the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the aforesaid applications and/or appeals in connection with arbitral proceeding arising out of the dispute relating to the arbitration agreement.;