SUSHANTA MALIK Vs. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED AND ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-72
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 08,2015

Sushanta Malik Appellant
VERSUS
Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By an order dated 19th March, 2015, the Single Bench (Tandon, J.) has referred to the Division Bench, the question of whether the learned City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act" , where the pecuniary value of the subject matter of arbitration, is less than Rs.10 lakhs or whether the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all proceedings under the 1996 Act, irrespective of pecuniary value thereof.
(2.) The question has arisen in view of the definition of "Court" in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act which is set out hereinbelow for convenience: "2. Definitions. :- (1) In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, - (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 jurisdiction 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 of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;"
(3.) Section 9 of the 1996 Act provides that a party may before, or during arbitral proceedings, or at any time after the making of the arbitral award, but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a Court for inter alia interim measures of protection in respect of any of the matters specified in Section 9(ii) of the 1996 Act. Similarly, under Section 14(2), parties may apply to the Court to decide any controversy on the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, if the arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions, or fails to act without delay, or withdraws from his office, or if the Court finds that the parties had agreed to termination of his mandate. Section 34 provides for recourse to a Court, against an arbitral award, on grounds stipulated in Section 34(2).;


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