AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition has been filed under Section 29A (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator.
As per the petition, the value of the claim pending for adjudication before the learned Arbitrator is Rs. 7,71,720/-, which is below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
Therefore, at the outset, the issue that arises is whether the present petition is maintainable before this Court.
In Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule1, the Supreme Court has held that applications in relation to the extension of arbitral mandate are matters of curial supervision and are to be instituted before the “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
The definition of “Court” was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Third Rock Consultants (P) Ltd.2, and it was clarified that merely because the High Court exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, a dispute having a value below its pecuniary jurisdiction would not lie before the High Court.
After arguing at some length, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file it at the appropriate forum.
Leave and liberty, as prayed, is granted in aforesaid terms.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn.