Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Of India And Others vs M/S Roman Tarmat Ltd. And Others on 18 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
Case: AA No.29/2017
Union of India and others. ...Petitioner(s)/Appellants.
Through: Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
Vs.
M/s Roman Tarmat Ltd. and others. ....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. F. A. Wani, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
18.03.2021
Open Court
01. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1997, against the order dated 12th August, 2017 passed by
the Principal District Judge, Pulwama.
02. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
03. That disputes having arisen between the parties, reference for
adjudication was made to the arbitrator by the Jammu Wing of this Court
vide order dated 29th May, 2014. Pursuant to the order so passed, the
arbitrator entered upon the reference and finally passed his award dated
20th February, 2016.
04. Not feeling satisfied with the award passed by the Arbitrator, the
Union of India-appellant herein filed an application for setting aside the
award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997, before
the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, on 19 th May, 2016. A similar
application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997,
was filed by the contractor-respondent herein on 31st May, 2016 before the
Principal District Judge, Jammu, who assigned it to Additional District
Judge, Jammu.
05. In so far as the application filed by the appellant under Section 34
before the ld. Principal District Judge, Srinagar, is concerned, the same was
held to be not maintainable on account of jurisdiction. The court was of the
opinion that the jurisdiction in fact lies with the District Judge, Pulwama,
instead of Srinagar and, therefore, returned the application to be presented
before the appropriate Court.
06. Considering the observations made by the Principal District Judge,
Srinagar, on the issue of jurisdiction as legally correct, the Union of India
presented the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act before the District Judge, Pulwama on 6th February, 2017.
07. The learned District Judge, Pulwama, vide judgment and order dated
12th August, 2017 which is impugned in the present appeal, identified two
issues for consideration and adjudication, namely, the issues of jurisdiction
and limitation. It needs to be pointed out that as per Section 34(3) an
application for setting aside may not be made after three months have
elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had
received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33,
from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral
tribunal. However, proviso to Section 34(4) provides that if the Court is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making
the application within the said period of three months, it may entertain the
application within a further period of thirty days but not thereafter.
08. Reverting back to the order passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Pulwama, it can be seen that the issue of limitation was left
untouched while the issue of jurisdiction was decided against the Union of
India.
09. The court proceeded on the issue of jurisdiction and while placing
reliance on Section 34 of the Act held that only that court would have
jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings where as per the Arbitration Act
any application under Part I of the Actwith respect to an arbitration
agreement had been made in a court and that all subsequent applications
arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings would have to be
made in that Court and in no other Court. In other words, it was held that it
was only the courts at Jammu which would have jurisdiction inasmuch as
the application under Section 34 had been preferred by the respondents
being the first application at Jammu.
10. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the view
expressed by the learned District Judge, Pulwama, is not the correct view
and that it ought to have given the benefit of limitation as prescribed under
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, entertained the application under Section
34 and considered the grievance of the Union of India against the arbitral
award.
11. In my opinion, the view expressed by the learned counsel on this
aspect may not be legally correct inasmuch as the issue of limitation has
not at all been touched by the learned District Judge and the decision has
been restricted only to the principles of Section 34.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been in a position to
dislodge the judgment when tested on the touchstone of Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997.The view expressed by the learned
District Judge, Pulwama, appears to be correct.
13. Having gone through the order impugned, I cannot persuade myself
to take a view different from the one expressed by the court below.
Therefore, the appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed.
(DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR)
JUDGE
Srinagar
18.03.2021
Abdul Qayoom, PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
ABDUL QAYOOM LONE
2021.08.04 11:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
