9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 594 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 application of the respondents herein?
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Application of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Relevance of the cause of action and the location of corporate offices in determining jurisdiction. 4. Impact of subsequent events (like shifting of registered office) on jurisdiction. 5. Applicability of the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to the Letters Patent. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court had assumed jurisdiction based on the respondent's corporate office being located in Mumbai, despite no part of the cause of action arising there. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction, emphasizing that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Bombay High Court could entertain the petition if the respondent carried on business in Mumbai, regardless of where the cause of action arose. 2. Application of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The appellant argued that the High Court erred in holding jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent instead of applying Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which defines the "court" as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district. The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of "court" under Section 2(1)(e) includes High Courts exercising original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, the Bombay High Court, as a Chartered High Court under the Letters Patent, had jurisdiction. 3. Relevance of the cause of action and the location of corporate offices in determining jurisdiction: The appellant contended that jurisdiction should be based on the cause of action, which arose entirely in Bellary, Karnataka. The Supreme Court noted that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent if the respondent carried on business in Mumbai. The subsequent shifting of the respondent's registered office to Mumbai during the pendency of the petition further affirmed the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction. 4. Impact of subsequent events (like shifting of registered office) on jurisdiction: The appellant argued that subsequent events, such as the shifting of the registered office, should not confer jurisdiction retrospectively. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the relevant time to determine jurisdiction is when the matter is heard. Since the registered office was in Mumbai when the jurisdiction issue was decided, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction. 5. Applicability of the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to the Letters Patent: The appellant argued that the principles of Section 20 of the CPC should apply to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing Section 120 of the CPC, which expressly excludes the applicability of Sections 16, 17, and 20 to Chartered High Courts. The Court emphasized that the Letters Patent is a special enactment conferring jurisdiction on Chartered High Courts, and the principles of the CPC cannot override it. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that subsequent events like the shifting of the registered office can confer jurisdiction and that the principles of the CPC do not apply to Chartered High Courts under the Letters Patent. The Bombay High Court was directed to proceed on merits to determine the matter in accordance with law.
|
