Nikhil Nath Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) In this matter arising under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of suit No. 180 of 1994 India Carbon Ltd v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , pending in this bench, defendant's preliminary objection as to lack of jurisdiction of this bench to deal with the matter was taken up for hearing and order.
(2.) The question for consideration is whether an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of a suit is a matter under the Arbitration Act or a proceeding in the suit. The question assumes importance because, as now by Determination, there are two different benches to deal with suits and arbitration matters exclusively.
(3.) Mr. Samaradittya Pal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-objector submitted that the Arbitration Act, as its preamble shows, is a consolidating and amending act and is intended to be an exhaustive law on the subject. In this connection he placed his reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court reported in (1) AIR 1968 Madras 335 (page 340). His contention was that since the Act is an exhaustive law on the subject an application under Section 34 of the Act or as a matter of fact any petition under any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act has to be taken as a matter arisen under Arbitration Act and should therefore be dealt With by the Bench dealing with the Arbitration matters. Mr. Pal submitted that jurisdiction of a Court is conferred by law and in respect of High Court it is the Letters Patent and various other special Acts like the Companies Act, Arbitration Act etc. which determine jurisdiction. Mr. Pal argued that extensive conferment of jurisdiction on a court requires a number of judges to deal with such matters and it is for convenient functioning that distribution of subject matters to different benches becomes necessary. Such distribution, Mr. Pal said, is commonly known as Determination which the Hon'ble Chief Justice has the prerogative to do and a judge dealing with the matter which is not as per determination made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, acts irregularly in the exercises of jurisdiction and in this sense the jurisdictional error is committed. In this connection Mr. Pal placed his reliance on a decision of this court reported in (2) 1989(2) CLJ 433 where Chief Justice, Desai sitting in a Division Bench held that decision by a judge without having jurisdiction as per determination is void and of no consequence. Mr. Pal submitted that as presently the Hon'ble Mr Justice Altamas Kabir has been dealing wit) matters under the Arbitration Act as per determination made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this bench dealing with suits has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter and that the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kabir or whoever is incharge of arbitration matters shall only be competent to take up this matter. Mr. Pal said the expressions, 'judicial authority' and 'legal Proceeding'in section 34 should indicate the judicial authority before whom the legal proceeding is pending. According to him, the suit is pending not before a particular bench but before the High Court and the application under Section 34 has to be made before the High Court. And which judge of the High Court will deal with the application is a matter of determination Since by determination this Court has no jurisdiction to try the arbitration matters, the instant application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act should go to the Bench which has the jurisdiction to deal with arbitration matters.;