[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kannur Municipal Corporation vs Royal Western Project L.L.P on 4 February, 2026
2026:KER:9665
Arb.A.No.26 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
ARB.A NO. 26 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025
IN OP(Arbitration)No.233/2025 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - IV, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, A CORPORATION ESTABLISHED
UNDER PROVISION OF MUNICIPALITY ACT 1994 IN
KANNUR DISTRICT IN STATE OF KERALA HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT KANNUR CORPORATION,
CORPORATION BUILDING, KANNUR,
KERALA (STATE), PIN - 670001.
BY ADV SMT.M.MEENA JOHN, SC, KANNUR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ROYAL WESTERN PROJECT L.L.P
PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SURVEY
NO.169, SATYAPURAM, SASWAD ROAD, HADASPAR, PUNE,
MAHARASHTRA (STATE) REP. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY NILESH DADABHAU RAUT, PIN - 412038.
BY ADV SHRI.HALVI K.S.
THIS ARBITRATION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON 04.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9665
Arb.A.No.26 of 2025
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Arb.A.No.26 of 2025
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Appellant is challenging the order dated 8.7.2025 in
O.P.(Arb.)No.233/2025 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge-IV, Thalassery. The petition was filed under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the respondent
seeking interim measures of protection pending commencement
of arbitral proceedings. The following interim reliefs were
sought against the appellant:-
"1. An order directing the respondent to permit the
petitioner to remove its machinery from the
Chelora worksite.
2. A direction to the respondent to deposit the alleged
outstanding amount of Rs.4,25,28,522/- before
this Court.
3. A direction to the respondent to file an affidavit
disclosing the agreement for the extension of the
contract.
2026:KER:9665
4. A direction to the respondent to produce the
minutes of the meeting bearing reference No.OBS-
1387733 dated 12.03.2025."
2. The appellant entered appearance and filed
objections. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional
District Judge partly allowed the petition and issued the
following directions: -
"1. The respondent is directed to permit the
petitioner to remove the Excavator (Poclain -
Hyundai Hydraulic R-210-7) and the Hywa
Tippers (MH12 VF 4217 bearing R.C.No.
MH25590572) from the Chelora worksite
forthwith. The respondent shall be entitled to
obtain appropriate letters or acknowledgments
from the petitioner as proof of removal of the
said machinery.
2. The petitioner shall take steps to appoint an
arbitrator in accordance with Clause 9 and
Clause 10 of the agreement dated
07.05.2022.
3. The parties are at liberty to raise all their
claims and contentions before the Arbitral
2026:KER:9665
Tribunal, and any observations made in this
order are purely prima facie and for the
limited purpose of deciding this petition."
3. Appellant raised various contentions in the
memorandum of appeal. Later, an application for amendment
was filed and an additional ground was incorporated regarding
maintainability of the petition under Section 9 before the District
Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Act was not
maintainable before the District Court as Commercial Court was
established at Thalassery before the filing of the petition. She
referred to the notification dated 24.2.2020 issued under
Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by the
Government of Kerala in consultation with this Court. By the
said notification Subordinate Judge's Courts were designated as
2026:KER:9665
Commercial Courts in all districts of Kerala for the purpose of
exercising jurisdiction and powers conferred on the Commercial
Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. By virtue of the
said notification, the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery was
designated as the Commercial Court for the Thalassery Judicial
District. She hence submitted that the petition ought not to
have been entertained by the learned Additional District Judge
and the order was passed without jurisdiction. The learned
counsel for the respondent replied to this contention by
submitting that the impugned order was passed by the District
Court having jurisdiction and no objection was raised by the
appellant before the said court regarding lack of jurisdiction. He
therefore submitted that the said contention is not liable to be
considered by this Court in this appeal.
6. Question of jurisdiction is a matter which goes to the
root. Even if it was not raised before the Additional District
Court, this Court is not precluded from considering the
contention regarding jurisdiction as it is a question of law.
2026:KER:9665
7. Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 deals
with the jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters. Section
10(3) reads as under:-
"10. Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration
matters.--Where the subject-matter of an
arbitration is a commercial dispute of a Specified
Value and-
........................................................................
(3) If such arbitration is other than an international
commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals
arising out of such arbitration under the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of
1996) that would ordinarily lie before any principal
civil court of original jurisdiction in a district (not
being a High Court) shall be filed in, and heard and
disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising
territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where
such Commercial Court has been constituted."
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery was designated as
the Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act by the
2026:KER:9665
notification referred above. Under such circumstances, an
application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act could be entertained only by the Commercial Court. The
learned Additional District Judge lacked jurisdiction to hear and
dispose the application under Section 9. The impugned order is
therefore unsustainable.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned
order is set aside as it was passed by a court lacking jurisdiction
to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act. However, I make it clear that it will be open
to the respondent to avail appropriate remedies in accordance
with law.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
