2001 (10) TMI 1187 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court u/s 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Requirement of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
3. Interpretation of "subject matter of the Award" vs. "subject matter of the arbitration agreement".

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the Court u/s 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The petitioners sought enforcement of a foreign award u/s 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as a deemed decree u/s 49. The respondents objected, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court, thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court held that the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction includes the High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The Court must have pecuniary, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Requirement of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent:
The petitioners applied for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as a precaution, asserting that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. The respondents contended that leave should have been sought before filing the application and that no part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent applies to arbitration proceedings under both Part I and Part II of the Act, and leave can be granted if part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction.

Interpretation of "subject matter of the Award" vs. "subject matter of the arbitration agreement":
The Court distinguished between "subject matter of the Award" and "subject matter of the arbitration agreement." The subject matter of the Award refers to the relief awarded, such as money, and can be enforced where the respondent has assets. The Court cited the case of Brace Transport Corporation to support this interpretation. The Court held that the subject matter of the Award must be within its jurisdiction for it to entertain the petition. Since the respondents did not have assets within the jurisdiction, the Court lacked jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Court rejected the application for leave under Clause 12 as it was sought after filing the application. Consequently, the petition was deemed not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners were allowed to retrieve original documents to pursue proceedings in a competent jurisdiction.