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>High Court upholds jurisdiction, arbitration award as decree. Waiver through participation in process estops challenge.</h1> <h3>SETH HIRALAL PATNI Versus. SRI KALI NATH</h3> The Bombay High Court upheld its jurisdiction to entertain the suit and make the arbitration award a decree of court. The appellant's participation in the ... - Issues:Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the suit and make the award a decree of court.Detailed Analysis:The case involved an appeal arising from execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder-respondent against the appellant. The appellant had engaged the respondent to negotiate the acquisition of shares in certain mills, resulting in a dispute over commission. The matter was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded the respondent a reduced commission. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the suit and make the award a decree of court, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.The appellant contended that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the cause of action did not arise within its territorial limits. However, the Court held that the objection to territorial jurisdiction is different from challenging the competence of the Court, and territorial jurisdiction can be waived. The Court cited the principle that consent or waiver can cure a defect of jurisdiction but not an inherent lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the appellant's participation in the arbitration process through the Court amounted to a waiver of the objection to territorial jurisdiction.The Court emphasized that by agreeing to refer the matter to arbitration through the Court, the appellant waived the right to challenge the Court's authority to make the reference or the arbitrator's authority to render the award. Therefore, the appellant was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the suit and make the award a decree of court. The Court concluded that this estoppel was sufficient to dismiss the appeal, rendering it unnecessary to address other points of controversy, including the impact of The Decrees and Orders Validating Act, 1936.In the final judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the decision that the appellant was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court in the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
