S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 16.07.2014 passed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2014 whereby, the Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1 Hazaribagh has held that the Court at Mumbai has original jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Case and the Court at Hazaribagh can entertain the Execution Case, only if the Execution Case is transferred under Order XXI Rule 6 and 8 C.P.C. to the Court at Hazaribagh, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner -Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and its registered as well as corporate offices are situated at Mumbai. The petitioner is one of the largest Non -Banking Financial Company (NBFC) in India and it is engaged in providing finance for the commercial vehicles and equipments. A loan -cum -hypothecation agreement dated 10.07.2007 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 for purchase of tractor and the respondent No. 1 agreed to pay total sum of Rs. 4,04,040/ - in 16 installments. The respondent No. 2 is the guarantor for the said loan to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 executed one demand promissory note for the loan and the respondent No. 2 -guarantor has executed a letter of guarantee. After the respondent No. 1 failed to make payment of the loan amount, an Arbitration proceeding was initiated by the petitioner and one Mr. B.B. Jain was appointed as arbitrator vide letter dated 25.06.2009. A statement of claim for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,91,704/ - was filed on 29.06.2009. The sole arbitrator made award on 14.09.2011 directing the loanee and the guarantor to pay jointly and severally to the claimant a sum of Rs. 3,91,704/ - with interest at the rate of 36% per annum from 29.02.2009 to 28.06.2009 and they were further held liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% from 29.06.2009 till, payment or realisation. Consequently, the petitioner filed Execution Case No. 01 of 2014 under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division No. I, Hazaribagh which has been dismissed as not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the object and purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are reflected in provisions contained in Section 5, Section 9, Section 35, Section 36 and Section 42. The various provisions under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are intended at minimizing the supervisory role of the Courts in Arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that, the award made by the arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not a decree under Section 2(2) C.P.C. and Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, the legal fiction created under Section 36 that "the award shall be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court" would not mean that the award can be executed only by the Court under whose jurisdiction it was made. The learned counsel further submits that, since the respondents are residing within the territorial limit of the Hazaribagh Court and the subject matter in the Execution Case is situated within the territorial limit of the Hazaribagh Court, the Execution Case filed in the Hazaribagh Court cannot be dismissed as not maintainable.
(3.) I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record.;