Case Note & Summary
The case arose from loan agreements between Tata Motors Finance Solution Ltd (now merged into Tata Capital Limited) and Parbez Hamid, containing arbitration clauses. Disputes having arisen, the applicant first filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the City Civil Court at Kolkata, seeking interim measures. Subsequently, the applicant moved the High Court of Bombay under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator, relying on a contractual clause conferring jurisdiction on courts in Mumbai. The core legal issue was whether the Bombay High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 when a Section 9 application was already pending in the City Civil Court at Kolkata, in light of Section 42 which mandates that all subsequent applications be made in the court first moved under the Act. The applicant argued that the jurisdictional clause permitted filing in Mumbai and that Section 42 was not attracted as the earlier application was not in a High Court, citing paragraph 32 of Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee. The Court examined the scheme of the Act, noting Section 42 is a non-obstante provision designed to channel all disputes under a single arbitration agreement into one forum for convenience. However, the City Civil Court, being a district court, lacked jurisdiction under Section 11. Harmonizing Sections 2(1)(e), 11(6), and 42, and applying the Supreme Court's decision in Ravi Ranjan, the Court held that the appropriate Section 11 court is the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the district court first moved—in this case, the Calcutta High Court. The observation in paragraph 32 of Ravi Ranjan was limited to clarifying that Section 42 does not confer Section 11 jurisdiction on a district court, not that any other High Court could be approached. The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction and disposed of the application, granting liberty to the applicant to approach the Calcutta High Court for relief under Section 11.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction under Section 11 - Section 42, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - When a party first approaches a district court under Section 9 for interim measures, all subsequent applications must be made to the court having supervisory jurisdiction over that district court, i.e., the High Court. Held that the High Court of Bombay does not have jurisdiction; the applicant must approach the Calcutta High Court. (Paras 4-6, 14) B) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Sections 11(6), 2(1)(e), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - An application under Section 11(6) cannot be moved in any High Court over India but must be in the High Court exercising superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over the court first moved under the Act. Held that the Calcutta High Court, which exercises superintendence over the City Civil Court at Kolkata, is the proper court. (Paras 7-9) C) Precedent - Ravi Ranjan Developers v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee - Section 42 and Section 11 interplay - The ratio of Ravi Ranjan is that the High Court having supervisory jurisdiction over the district court first moved under the Act is the appropriate Section 11 court, and the observation that Section 42 is not attracted does not permit any other High Court to exercise jurisdiction. Held that the application should be filed before the Calcutta High Court. (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when a prior application under Section 9 has been made to the City Civil Court at Kolkata, and if so, whether the application should be entertained or the applicant should approach the Calcutta High Court.
Final Decision
Application disposed of without exercising jurisdiction under Section 11. Liberty granted to the Applicant to approach the Calcutta High Court with an application under Section 11.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 42 is a non-obstante provision vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the court first moved under the Act for all future applications
- forum conveniens principle underlying Section 42
- Section 11(6) application must be moved in the High Court exercising superintendence over the court first moved under Section 2(1)(e)
