Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of a Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 22 November 1999, dismissing a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants, claiming to be owners of land in Jetalpur, Baroda, had entered into development agreements with the respondent between 2 March 1995 and 18 March 1995. The agreements contained an arbitration clause. On 11 August 1995, the appellants alleged breach by the respondent, and on 6 September 1995, they purported to terminate the agreements. The respondent filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadodara on 7 September 1998 seeking specific performance and injunction. On 16 September 1998, the appellants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in that court. On 14 January 1999, the appellants invoked arbitration and proposed an arbitrator. The respondent opposed, contending that specific performance could only be decreed by a civil court. On 15 September 1999, the appellants filed a Section 9 petition before the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that since the appellants had already filed a Section 8 application before the Vadodara court, the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 9. The Division Bench upheld this reasoning, holding that the court where the Section 8 application is pending has exclusive jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction - Section 9 and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Interim Relief - The appellants filed a Section 9 petition before the Bombay High Court seeking injunction, while a Section 8 application was already pending before the Civil Judge at Vadodara in a suit filed by the respondent. The court held that once a Section 8 application is filed before a civil court, that court alone has jurisdiction to pass interim orders under Section 9, and the High Court cannot entertain a separate Section 9 petition. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court at Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the appellants have already filed an application under Section 8 of the same Act before a Civil Court at Vadodara in a suit instituted by the respondent.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Learned Single Judge dated 22 November 1999 dismissing the Section 9 petition is upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 is not available where a party has already invoked Section 8 before a civil court in respect of the same subject matter
- as the court where the Section 8 application is pending has exclusive jurisdiction to grant interim relief.
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (12) 51
APPEAL NO.23 OF 2000 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.324 OF 1999
D.Y. Chandrachud, A.A. Sayed
Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Ms. Shough Merchant, Mr. Daryush Marfatia and Ms. Shreya Parikh i/b. Bharucha & Partners for the Appellant. Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karl Shroff, Mr. Keerit Shah and Ms. Khyhati Ghevaria i/b. Dhru & Co. for the Respondent.
Deceased Sharda Raje Uday Singh Rao Gaekwar through her heir and legal representative Ujjwala Raje Shah & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against dismissal of a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought an injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing their possession and from pursuing development work on the land.
Filing Reason
Appellants alleged breach of development agreements by the respondent and sought to invoke arbitration, but the respondent filed a suit for specific performance in Vadodara court.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court dismissed the Section 9 petition on 22 November 1999 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to pending Section 8 application before Vadodara court.
Issues
Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a Section 9 petition when a Section 8 application is already pending before a civil court at Vadodara.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 petition as the arbitration agreement was governed by the Act and the court had territorial jurisdiction.
Respondent contended that since the appellants had already filed a Section 8 application before the Vadodara court, that court alone had jurisdiction to pass interim orders under Section 9.
Ratio Decidendi
Once a party files an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before a civil court in a pending suit, that court alone has jurisdiction to pass interim orders under Section 9 of the Act, and no other court can entertain a separate Section 9 petition in respect of the same subject matter.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal arises out of an order of a Learned Single Judge dated 22 November 1999, dismissing a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that the Appellants having filed an application under Section 8 before a Court at Vadodara, where the Respondent has instituted a suit, this Court would not have jurisdiction to pass any orders in relation to arbitral proceedings, including orders under Section 9.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadodara on 7 September 1998. On 16 September 1998, the appellants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in that court. On 15 September 1999, the appellants filed a Section 9 petition before the Bombay High Court. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 22 November 1999. The appellants appealed to the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal on 13 December 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 8
