9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal had been appointed as the arbitrator. The operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard reads:- During the course of hearing of this appeal the parties on both sides have agreed that in the place of the two arbitrators one be nominated by each of the parties, it would be sufficient if the reference is made to a single arbitrator. To this extent parties by consent have modified the original terms of the agreement which no doubt required reference to two arbitrators. Counsel on both sides have stated that no objection will be raised in future that the order of this court appointing single arbitration is contrary to the agreement between the parties. Parties have also agreed that the reference is to be made to Just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are free to determine the number of arbitrators provided such number shall not be an even number. Section 11 provides the procedure as to when the arbitrators have to be appointed and circumstances under which the Chief Justice or the institution designated by him or the person designated by him can appoint the arbitrator. Similar provisions exist in case of international commercial arbitrations and reference has to be made to Chief Justice of India. Section 34 further providers the procedure for recourse against the arbitral award. It can only be set aside in terms of sub-section (2) and sub-section 3 to Section 34 of the Act. Section 42 of the Act also assumes importance because it provides as to who can have the jurisdiction to deal with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 5 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration, Act, 1940 for removal of the arbitrator. The said application was dismissed. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The supreme Court removed the arbitrator and appointed another person as the arbitrator. Thereafter Supreme Court gave further directions about manner and method of conducting the arbitration proceedings and fixed the time for completion of arbitration proceedings. The Supreme Court held that keeping in view of the these facts and provisions of sub-section (4) to Section 31 of Arbitration Act, 1940 the subsequent application could only be filed in the Supreme Court. The precise findings of the Supreme Court in this regard are to the following effect:- ... To illustrate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely disposing an appeal against the judgment of this court. Therefore, not only because the present Act is totally different from the Arbitration Act, 1940 for the above said reason the decision referred to by the respondent's learned counsel will have little impact and thrust with respect to the facts of the present case. 9. Not only that it is abundantly clear from perusal of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that there are material differences because as noted above under Section 42 of the Act the subsequent applications have only to be filed in that court. The expression Court in the Arbitration Act, 1940 was to the following effect: (c) Court means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs 2(3) and 42 paraphrased in simple language, would mean that any application with respect to an arbitration agreement will have to be filed in the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, or, as the case may be, in the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit and that Court alone to which the application is filed shall have the jurisdiction over the entire arbitral proceedings to the exclusion of any other Court, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of arbitration. 12. The above said finding are in consonance with the finding recorded ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he action may or may not have had jurisdiction to try the suit to start with or be the competent court within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the new Act. 14. The decision in the case of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court again and reiterated the same view in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi Ors. . 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it needs hardly a reiteration that when an application as filed in a court all subsequent applications in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be filed in the same court. The Court is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act but it includes the High Court in it original jurisdiction. Otherwise the same has to be filed in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
