ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) In this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2016 (in short, the said 'Act of 1996'), the appellant has assailed the order dated March 27, 2018 passed by the arbitrator in an application under Section 17 of the Act of 1996 in the arbitral proceeding between the present respondent and the appellant. By the impugned order, the arbitrator appointed two of the officers of the present respondent, the claimant in the arbitral proceeding as the Joint Receivers to take possession of the assets hypothecated by the present appellant in favour of the claimant-respondent. In the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application, G.A. No. 1313 of 2018 praying for, stay of operation of the impugned order.
(2.) The grievance of the appellant is that when a copy of the application filed under Section 17 of the Act of 21996 was served upon it only on May 7, 2018 the arbitrator passed the impugned ex-parte order dated March 27, 2018 by holding that in spite of service it had chosen to stay away from the arbitral proceeding. In the application, GA No.1313 of 2018 filed in the appeal the present appellant has demonstrated that a copy of the application filed by the present appellant was dispatched only on April 27, 2018 and the same was received by it on May 7, 2018. Accordingly, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that when it is proved beyond doubt that as on the date of passing of the impugned order, that is, on March 27, 2018, a copy of the application under Section 17 of the Act of 1996 was not even dispatched to itself, the impugned order passed by the arbitrator is vitiated by patent illegality and the same is liable to be set aside.
(3.) At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that after the Joint Receivers went to take possession of the hypothecated assets in terms of the impugned order passed by the arbitrator, the present appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, before the learned Court of the 16th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Medchal, against the respondent. It is, however, submitted by the petitioner that in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties providing that only the Courts of Kolkata would have jurisdiction to entertain an application filed by any of the parties herein, no Court in Andhra Pradesh has the jurisdiction to entertain the said application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. Mr. D. Padmanavan Reddy, one of the directors of the respondent company, present before this Court throgh Mr. Srinivas, gave an undertaking before this Court to take steps for withdrawal of the said application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 from the Court of the 16th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Valkagini, Medchal positively within July 4, 2018. On the basis of the above undertaking given on behalf of the appellant the appeal is taken up for hearing.;