M/S. Renasonic E Solution Ltd. vs M/S.Voltas Ltd. And Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 462 Del

     *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  OMP.No. 205/2008

%                                   Date of decision: 09.02.2009

M/S. RENASONIC
E SOLUTION LTD.                                     .... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Advocate

                                Versus

M/S.VOLTAS LTD. AND ANR                             .... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan and
                                  Ms. Ruchi Singh, Advocates


CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may
      be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. (ORAL)

1. The respondents immediately on service on first day itself i.e.

on 31st October, 2008 had contended that the court of minimum

pecuniary jurisdiction competent to entertain the present petition

was not this Court and this petition ought to have been filed in the

District Court. The counsel for the petitioner had then sought

adjournment to consider the matter.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has today relied upon an office

order dated 22nd August, 2003 of this Court transferring the pending

suits and other proceedings on the original side of this Court up to

the value of Rs. 20 lacs to the district/subordinate courts except inter

alia arbitration cases where Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996

is attracted. It is argued that in the present case the arbitrator was

appointed vide order of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act and

for this reason this petition under Section 34 of the Act shall also lie

before this Court.

3. The question still is whether Section 42 covers within its ambit

an application under Section 11(6) of the Act.

4. The said question is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in

Rodemadan India Limited Vs. International Trade Expo Center

Limited (2006) 11 SCC 651 has held in para 8 of the judgment that

the power under Section 11(6) of the Act is the power of a designate

referred to under the Section and not that of the Court; albeit it has

now been held to have judicial characteristics by reason of the

judgment in SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. 2005 (8) SCC

618.

5. It was further held in para 25 of the judgment that neither the

Chief Justice nor his designate under Section 11(6) is a "court" as

contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and further that a bar

of jurisdiction under Section 42 is only intended to apply to a "court"

as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

6. The said judgment of the Apex Court was followed by Single

Judge of this Court in UOI vs. S.R. Constructions Co. (144) 2007

DLT 580 and it was held that mere passing of an order under Section

11(6) of the Act by this Court would not vest this Court with the

exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act to entertain the

objections under Section 34 of the Act, if otherwise this Court did not

have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it being the admitted

position that the claims before the arbitrator in the present case

were of less than Rs. 20 lacs, the subject matter of the arbitration,

had the same been the subject of the suit, would have been

entertainable by a Court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction and not

by this Court, the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction whereof is in

excess of Rs. 20 lacs.

8. Accordingly, as requested by the counsel for the petitioner, the

petition along with the original documents, if any, is ordered to be

returned to the counsel for the petitioner in accordance with law.

The counsels inform that the District Judge having jurisdiction to

entertain the petition would be the District Judge (South).

Accordingly, it is directed that the parties to appear before the

District Judge (South) on 8th May, 2009 by which date the petitioner

to take back the petition and the original documents, if any, from this

Court and to file the same before the District Judge (South). If either

of the parties fails to appear before the District Judge (South) on the

date fixed, notice be issued to that party.

9. The certified copy of the petition and the original documents

be prepared in an expeditious manner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J February 09, 2009 rb