2019 (11) TMI 1722 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction to hear and entertain an application - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seeking prohibition/restraint from disturbing, dispossessing or causing any disturbance/obstruction/obstacle in exclusive actual physical possession of the Possessed Leased Premises - HELD THAT - A non obstante clause is generally appended to a section with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that inspite of the provisions or Act mentioned in the non obstante clause, the provision following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provision in which the non obstante clause occurs. When two or more laws or provisions operate in the same field and each contains a non obstante clause stating that its provision will override those of any other provisions or law, stimulating and intricate problems of interpretation arise. In resolving such problems of interpretation, no settled principles can be applied except to refer to the object and purpose of each of the two provisions, containing a non obstante clause. Two provisions in same Act each containing a non obstante clause, requires a harmonious interpretation of the two seemingly conflicting provisions in the same Act. In this difficult exercise, there are involved proper consideration of giving effect to the object and purpose of two provisions and the language employed in each. From the language of the definition of the term the Court under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996 the Parliament apparently intended to confer the power on the highest judicial authority in a district. It must certainly be taken to have been conscious of the object to be achieved while framing the definition of the term Court . Besides, it intended to minimize the supervisory role of the Courts in the arbitral process. It also intended to add the greatest credibility to this process - It is thus that the Legislature clearly circumscribed and specifically narrowed down the definition of the term Court to mean only the Court of the principal civil original jurisdiction in a district and it is only the Court of District Judge in a district which is such a Court of principal civil jurisdiction. The application preferred by the applicant under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 could have been entertained only by the District Court at Dahod in view of the specific definition of the term 'Court' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1996 to be read with the Section 11 of the Act, 2015. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Interpretation of the term "Court" under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Overriding effect of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
4. Applicability of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005.
5. Relevance of the Notification issued by the Legal Department of the Government of Gujarat.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking various interim measures to protect its leasehold rights. The 2nd Additional District Judge, Dahod, declined to hear the application, stating it lacked jurisdiction and directed the applicant to present the application before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod (Commercial Court). The applicant challenged this decision, arguing that the District Court, being the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, had the authority to entertain the application.

2. Interpretation of the term "Court" under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
Section 2(e) of the Act defines "Court" as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, excluding any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court or any Court of Small Causes. The applicant argued that the District Court is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and therefore competent to hear the application under Section 9. The respondent's counsel agreed that the District Court had jurisdiction, and the lower court's decision was erroneous.

3. Overriding effect of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015:
The lower court relied on Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which states that the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any other law. The lower court interpreted this to mean that the Commercial Courts Act superseded the Arbitration Act, requiring commercial disputes to be heard by the Commercial Court. However, the High Court clarified that Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act bars Commercial Courts from deciding any suit, application, or proceeding where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred under any other law, such as the Arbitration Act.

4. Applicability of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005:
Section 12 of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005, designates the Court of a District Judge as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within its local limits. The applicant argued that this provision, read with Section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act, confirmed that the District Court had jurisdiction over the application under Section 9. The High Court supported this interpretation, emphasizing that the District Court remains the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for arbitration matters.

5. Relevance of the Notification issued by the Legal Department of the Government of Gujarat:
The lower court referred to a Notification dated 15th April 2019, issued by the Legal Department of the Government of Gujarat, specifying that Principal Senior Civil Judges in all districts would have jurisdiction over commercial disputes. The applicant contended that this Notification did not override the specific provisions of the Arbitration Act. The High Court agreed, stating that the Notification could not negate the statutory definition of "Court" under the Arbitration Act, which designates the District Court as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned order of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Dahod, and restored the Civil Misc. Application to the file of the said court. The High Court directed the lower court to decide the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act on its merits within one week, emphasizing the urgency and the need to adhere to the legal framework established by the Arbitration Act and the Gujarat Civil Courts Act. The ruling reinforced the principle that the District Court, as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, retains authority over arbitration-related applications, notwithstanding the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act or any state-issued notifications.