2005 (12) TMI 592 - HC - Indian Laws

Delhi High Court dismisses petition enforcing foreign award due to jurisdictional and procedural issues.

Bulk Trading S.A. Versus Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking enforcement of a foreign award on the grounds of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and inadmissibility of ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the petition.2. Applicability of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to a foreign award.3. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.4. Maintainability of the present petition during the pendency of a similar petition in another court.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to Entertain the Petition:The petition sought enforcement of a foreign award dated 10.11.2003 and the setting aside of an order dated 31.5.2005 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, as well as a stay on proceedings in the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. The court clarified that it could not allow the prayers to set aside the order dated 31.5.2005 because it was not an appeal from that order, nor could it stay proceedings in the District Court at Tiruchirapalli, which is outside its jurisdiction. Thus, the petition was considered only from the standpoint of whether the foreign award could be enforced by this Court.2. Applicability of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to a Foreign Award:The respondent argued that Section 42 of the Act barred the Delhi High Court from entertaining the petition since objections to the award were already filed in the District Court at Tiruchirapalli. The petitioner countered that Section 42 falls under Part I of the Act, which pertains to domestic awards, while foreign awards are governed by Part II. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that Section 42 does not apply to foreign awards. The court emphasized that an application under Section 34 to set aside a foreign award is not contemplated under Part II of the Act, which deals with foreign awards. Instead, objections to the enforcement of a foreign award can only be raised under Section 48 when the award is sought to be enforced.3. Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:The petitioner argued that the Delhi High Court had pecuniary jurisdiction since the award amount exceeded Rs. 20,00,000/-. However, the court noted that the petitioner had previously contended before the Additional District Judge that the award amount was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, which placed it within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The Additional District Judge had ruled that the execution amount was Rs. 19,99,643/-, within her court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner did not appeal this finding. Thus, the court concluded that it did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition.4. Maintainability of the Present Petition During the Pendency of a Similar Petition in Another Court:The respondent argued that the present petition was not maintainable as a similar petition was pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The petitioner cited a decision allowing simultaneous execution in multiple courts, but the court distinguished this case, noting that the simultaneous execution in different courts was permissible only when the properties were in different jurisdictions. Since both the District Court and the High Court had jurisdiction over the same territory, the court held that a second execution application would not lie.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition on two grounds: lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and the inadmissibility of a second execution application while the first was pending in the District Court. The court found the objections regarding Section 42 to be untenable but ultimately ruled against the petitioner based on jurisdictional and procedural grounds. No order as to costs was made.