2001 (9) TMI 1120 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdiction confirmed under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, subsequent applications must be filed in same court.

The National Thermal Power Corp. Versus RS. Avtar Singh & Co. And Another

The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rejecting the ... - Issues involved:Jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Analysis:The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant, National Thermal Power Corporation, filed an application against an award passed by an arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court of India. The respondent objected, arguing that since the arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court, the application under Section 34 could only be filed in that court and not in the present court.The key legal provisions considered in this context were Section 2(e), Section 10, Section 11, Section 34, and Section 42 of the Act. Section 42 specifically addresses jurisdiction, stating that when an application under the Act has been made in a court with respect to an arbitration agreement, that court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and subsequent applications arising from that agreement. The definition of the court under the Act includes the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district or the High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.The applicant argued that since the original application was made in the present court, this court alone had jurisdiction to deal with any subsequent arbitral proceedings. Reference was made to a decision by the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing that under the Act, only one court, either the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or the High Court in its ordinary original jurisdiction, can be the venue for all matters related to an arbitration and award.Furthermore, the applicant cited a Supreme Court decision in a similar context, emphasizing that the court to challenge an award would be the one defined in Section 2(e) of the Act, and subsequent applications must be filed in the same court where the initial application was made. The court reiterated that under Section 42 of the Act, all subsequent applications must be filed in the same court where the original application was made, which, in this case, was the present court.In conclusion, the court held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act, rejecting the objection raised by the respondent. The judgment emphasized the importance of the specific provisions of the Act regarding jurisdiction and the venue for arbitral proceedings, ensuring consistency and adherence to the statutory framework.