AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Naidu, J.—The Appellant as Petitioner filed an application u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack, inter alia praying for passing an order of interim injunction against the Respondents restraining them from recovering any amount payable to the Appellant in respect of a work said to have been executed by it. The said application was registered as Arbitration Petition No. 210 of 2008.
After receiving notice the Respondents, who are Opp. Parties before the Learned District Judge, Cuttack appeared & filed written objection taking the stand that the Arbitration Application filed before the District.Judge, Cuttack is not maintainable, mainly on the ground that the parties had agreed to confine the jurisdiction to decide all or any dispute arising out of the agreement in a Court situated at New Delhi & thus, the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge was excluded.
After hearing Learnod Counsel for the parties in extenso, the Learned District Judge in the light of the ratio of several Judgments of the Supreme Court, in paragraph-4 of the order held as follows:
...In view of such clear cut law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, this could clearly does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner''s application.
On the basis of such conclusion it was held that the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack lacks the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the inter se dispute between the parties & disposed of Arbitration Petition No. 210 of 2008.
The grievance of Mr. Sangneria, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that the Learned District Judge after arriving at a conclusion that the Court at Cuttack had no jurisdiction to try the case, acted illegally, to proceed further and discussed the merits of the case. Thus, according to, Mr. Sangneria, all the observations made by the Learned District Judge sifter paragraph-4 of the Judgment are illegal, irregular & excess of jurisdiction & as such, the same may be set aside.
Mr. Sanjit Mohhanty, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand states that in fact the Learned District Judge did not delve into the merits of the case nor did he give any findings. It is submitted that the Learned District Judge after coming to the conciusion that the Court at Cuttack lacks initial Jurisdiction, only dealt with the interim orders passed by it in course of proceeding & vacated the said orders.
In course of hearing, it appears that the Appellant has already approached the Delhi High Court in ARBP No. 236 of 2009 for redressal of its grievance. In view of the fact that the dispute is now pending at Delhi High Court in ARBP No. 236 of 2009 for redressal of its grievance, this Court refrains from entering into the merits of the case, more so because the order passed by the District Judge with regard to maintainability of the Arbitration Case at Cuttack, is not assailed by the Petitioners. So far as the observations made by the Learned District Judge is concerned, law is well settled that after a Court comes to a conclusion that it lacks initial jurisdiction, thereafter it has no authority to delve into the merits. In the ease in hand, on perusal of the order passed by the District Judge, this Court is satisfied that in fact the District Judge discussed the submissions & vacated the ad interim orders passed. Strictly speaking, such an endeavour is not necessary in view of the position of law that once the main case is found not to be maintainable & is dismissed ail the ad interim orders passed, stand automatically vacated.
In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, this Appeal is disposed of without interfering wit the order passed by the District Judge, Cuttack, but then holding that the observations, made in paragraphs 5 to 8 by the Learned District Judge shall not be binding upon any of the parties in future litigation.