M/S. Adhunik Corporation Limited vs Sri Gouri Shanker Choubey
2024 Latest Caselaw 2995 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

M/S. Adhunik Corporation Limited vs Sri Gouri Shanker Choubey on 24 September, 2024

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OD-1
                                ORDER SHEET

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                              ORIGINAL SIDE
                          (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

                              AP-COM 504 of 2024
                            IA No.GA-COM 1 of 2024

                   M/S. ADHUNIK CORPORATION LIMITED
                                  VS.
                      SRI GOURI SHANKER CHOUBEY


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 24th September, 2024.

                 Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Ishaan Saha, Mr. Tanmay Agarwal, Mr. Yash Singhi,
                                      Mr. Chitrash Saraogi, Advocates for the petitioner.

                          Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Mr. Tanish Ghaneriwala, Mr. Ramendu
                                                 Agarwal, Advocates for the respondent.

The Court : It is submitted by the parties that during the pendency of

this application the petitioner in the application under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996

Act') had filed an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for

appointment of an Arbitrator. By a judgment and order dated 19th

September, 2024 the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted.

On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that since the Arbitral

Tribunal has been constituted, the parties instead of being retained before

this Court should be relegated to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the

1996 Act before the Tribunal. In this regard the petitioner refers to the

provision of Section 9(3) of the 1996 Act.

On behalf of the respondent in the application under Section 9 of the

1996 Act it is submitted that the law even after incorporation of the

provision of Section 9(3) of the 1996 Act does not take away the jurisdiction

of the Court when an application under Section 9 has been entertained by

the Court. In this context the respondent relies upon a judgment reported in

2021 SCC OnLine SC 718 (Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. V. Essar

Bulk Terminal Ltd.

After hearing the parties, since the application filed by the respondent

challenging the jurisdiction has been heard and is reserved for judgment, let

this matter be adjourned till 19th November, 2024.

The interim order already in subsistence shall continue till 30th

November, 2024 or until further orders whichever is earlier.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

pa