AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—In these three petitions, the petitioner is assailing three different orders passed by the Court below in A.A. Nos. 626/2013, 625/2013 and 624/2013. Since the issue is common to all these petitions they are taken up together and are disposed of by this order. In the pending petitions filed by the respondents herein before the Court below u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner who was one of the respondent therein had filed applications in all petitions under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, praying that the petitions be rejected for want of jurisdiction.
The contention put forth therein was that the property belonging to the Firm is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City and therefore, the petitions filed u/s 9 would not be maintainable.
The respondents herein had filed their objections to the said applications. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the respective applications filed in the said three petitions. It is against the said order the 1st respondent therein is before this Court in these petitions.
Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a Division Bench Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Globe Congeneration Power Limited Vs. Sri Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkere Karkhane Niyamit, which was also noticed by the Court below, the said situation was in a circumstance where the ultimate orders had been passed on Section 9 applications. However, in the instant case, what arises for consideration at this stage is as to whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was maintainable at all in a petition filed u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This has to be noticed at the outset.
The learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Valliappa Software Technological Park (Private) Limited Vs. C. Sundaram and Others, . The learned Judge of this Court on considering the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as also the provisions under CPC is of the view that the petition filed u/s 9 cannot be considered as a civil suit and therefore, an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC would not be maintainable in such proceedings. Therefore, in a circumstance where this Court has already held that an application under Order VII Rule 11 would not be maintainable in a proceedings u/s 9, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the Court below in the impugned orders, the applications under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. in any event was required to be dismissed for the reasons that it was not maintainable. Hence, the orders impugned herein do not call for interference. Therefore, keeping in view the said legal position, I am of the opinion that the Court below in any event was justified in rejecting the applications. If at all the petitioner herein has any objections to the main petition, the petitioner would have to file the same before the Court below and urge all contentions therein.
In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of. No costs.