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: Jurisdiction Change Not Retroactive</h1> <h3>Noble Resources Limited Versus The Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and others</h3> Noble Resources Limited Versus The Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction for enforcement of foreign arbitration awards under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Impact of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on pending execution applications.3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments in determining jurisdiction and procedural changes.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction for enforcement of foreign arbitration awards under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:The petition challenges the order dated 14.12.2015 which dismissed an application filed under Section 47 (Part II) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of foreign arbitration awards dated 27.10.2014 and 15.12.2014. The central issue is whether the term 'Court' in Section 47 refers to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district or the High Court, especially after the amendment introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.2. Impact of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on pending execution applications:The petitioner initially filed the execution application before the District Judge, Gurgaon, which was valid under the un-amended Section 47. However, the Amended Ordinance-2015, effective from 23.10.2015, altered the jurisdiction, conferring it upon the High Court. Respondent No.2 argued that the District Court no longer had jurisdiction due to this amendment, leading to the dismissal of the execution application by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments in determining jurisdiction and procedural changes:The petitioner cited the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. Dhadi Sahu, 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 257, to argue that changes in forum do not affect pending actions unless explicitly stated. The Court examined the facts of Dhadi Sahu's case, which dealt with the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the Income Tax Act before and after an amendment. The Supreme Court held that pending proceedings should continue in the original forum unless the new law explicitly states otherwise.In contrast, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sudhir G. Angur and others vs. M. Sanjeev and others, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 141, which dealt with procedural aspects under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the High Court found this judgment inapplicable to the present case.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the principle established in Dhadi Sahu's case applies, meaning the change in jurisdiction introduced by the Amended Ordinance-2015 does not retroactively affect pending execution applications. Thus, the impugned order by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, was deemed illegal. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 14.12.2015 was set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
