9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration to the matter, are of the view that the District Court at Latur and High Court of Bombay have committed error of law in entertaining the application under Section 34 of the Act and dismissing the revision petition. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. - Decided in favour of appellant. - Civil Appeal No. 2077 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2015 - M. Y. Eqbal And Kurian Joseph,JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Shrivastava, Adv. For M/s. Lex Regis Law Offices For the Respondent : Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande,Adv. ORDER M. Y. Eqbal, J. Leave granted. 2. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Bombay High Court has correctly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 with interest. 6. The respondent no.2 challenged the Award by filing an application under Section 34 of 1996 Act before the District Court at Latur, Maharashtra for setting aside the Award. The appellant opposed the said application by challenging the jurisdiction of the District Court in Latur. The appellant contended that the District Court at Raichur has jurisdiction to hear the application under Section 34 of the Act. The District Judge proceeded to decide the jurisdiction by referring various provisions including Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that since respondent no.2 resides at Latur, delivery of cotton bales was taken at Latur and the place of business of respondent no.2 was at Latur, it is the Distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available to respondent no.2 was to make an application under Section 34 of the Act before the Civil Court of original jurisdiction at Raichur, since the Karnataka High Court has no original jurisdiction. 9. Recently, when a similar question for consideration arose before three Judges Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal Ors. vs. Associated contractors, (2015) 1 SCC 32, this Court held:- 22. One more question that may arise under Section 42 is whether Section 42 would apply in cases where an application made in a court is [pic]found to be without jurisdiction. Under Section 31(4) of the old Act, it has been held in F.C.I. v. A.M. Ahmed Co.,(2001) 10 SCC 532 at p. 532, para 6 and Neycer India Ltd. v. GMB Ceramic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
