TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Civil Court's Jurisdiction Over Arbitration Dispute Upheld | Interim Relief Extended | Section 45</h1> <h3>Global Marketing Direct Ltd. Versus GTL Ltd.</h3> Global Marketing Direct Ltd. Versus GTL Ltd. - [2004] 55 SCL 525 (BOM.) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court post-arbitration award.2. Applicability of Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.3. Continuation of interim relief post-arbitration award.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court Post-Arbitration Award:The primary issue was whether the Civil Court retains jurisdiction to proceed with the suit after an arbitration award has been passed. The petitioner argued that the Civil Court should cease to have jurisdiction once the arbitration culminates in an award, and the plaintiff's remedy lies in opposing the enforcement of the award under Section 48 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The Civil Judge rejected this application, holding that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had not applied under Section 45 to refer the dispute to arbitration. The court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted unless a request is made under Section 45, and thus dismissed the application while allowing the liberty to invoke Section 45.2. Applicability of Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996:Section 45 can be invoked by a judicial authority when there is an action in a matter where the parties have an arbitration agreement, provided the agreement is not null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. The court noted that the suit sought a declaration that the arbitration agreements were null and void, thus giving the Civil Court jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that unlike Section 8, Section 45 does not have a time limit for making such an application. The court concluded that even if Section 45 is invoked, the Civil Court retains jurisdiction until it decides on the validity of the arbitration agreement.3. Continuation of Interim Relief Post-Arbitration Award:The petitioner contended that the Civil Court should not proceed with the suit or any interim applications post-arbitration award. The court, however, noted that the suit involved two independent agreements and the reliefs sought were broader than the arbitration award. The court held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction continues until it is determined whether the arbitration agreement is void or inoperative. The court further stated that the trial court's decision to reject the application for lack of jurisdiction was correct, as the Civil Court retains jurisdiction until a formal decision is made under Section 45.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and any interim applications until it decides on the validity of the arbitration agreement under Section 45. The court rejected the petitioner's application to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds and upheld the trial court's decision. The court also extended the interim relief for eight weeks, considering the respondent's pending appeal before the Apex Court.Civil Revision Application rejected.
TaxTMI 