Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a share broker, purchased 100 shares of Odyssey Technology Limited on behalf of a client. The shares were sent for registration but only 100 were received; the balance were allegedly lost. The respondent lodged an FIR and later filed an arbitration claim before the BSE Arbitral Tribunal, which awarded Rs. 49,900. The appellant's appeals to the appellate tribunals were dismissed. The appellant then filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Bombay City Civil Court, which rejected it. The appellant appealed under Section 37. The High Court examined whether the City Civil Court is a 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. It held that the City Civil Court is not the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district and is inferior to the High Court, thus not a 'Court' under the Act. Consequently, the Section 34 petition was without jurisdiction. However, the appeal under Section 37 against the order of the City Civil Court was maintainable. The High Court set aside the City Civil Court's order and remanded the matter to the proper court for fresh consideration.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Definition of 'Court' - Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Bombay City Civil Court is not the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district and is of a grade inferior to the High Court, hence it is not a 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) - A petition under Section 34 of the Act filed before the City Civil Court is without jurisdiction - The appeal under Section 37 against the order of the City Civil Court is maintainable (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay City Civil Court is a 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and consequently whether the Section 34 petition filed before it was maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the City Civil Court dated 22 February 2002, and remanded the matter to the proper court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Law Points
- City Civil Court is not a 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 34 petition filed before City Civil Court is without jurisdiction
- Section 37 appeal against order of City Civil Court is maintainable
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (03) 69
Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2009 along with CAR/9/2009
Mr. Ashish Rao with Mr. Tejas Shah i/by M & M Legal Venture for the Appellant; Mrs. R.V. Thakkar i/by M/s. Dave & Girish & Co. for respondents
Devendra Shantilal Kothari
Mother India Securities Pvt. Ltd. & The Stock Exchange, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against rejection of Section 34 petition by the Bombay City Civil Court.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to challenge the rejection order dated 22 February 2002 passed by the Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court on his Section 34 petition.
Filing Reason
The appellant's Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award was rejected by the City Civil Court; the appellant appealed under Section 37.
Previous Decisions
The Arbitral Tribunal of BSE awarded Rs. 49,900 to respondent No.1. The First Appeal and Second Appeal before the appellate tribunals of BSE were dismissed on 19.01.2001 and 28.03.2001 respectively. The City Civil Court rejected the Section 34 petition on 22.02.2002.
Issues
Whether the Bombay City Civil Court is a 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether the Section 34 petition filed before the City Civil Court was maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the City Civil Court is not a 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act and thus the Section 34 petition was without jurisdiction.
The respondents contended that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Bombay City Civil Court is not the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district and is of a grade inferior to the High Court, therefore it is not a 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A petition under Section 34 filed before it is without jurisdiction. However, an appeal under Section 37 against its order is maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellant, who is a share broker, has invoked Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and challenged a rejection order dated 22 February, 2002 passed by the Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, (City Civil Court) on a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the Appellant.
First of all, it is relevant to consider whether the City Civil Court is a 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act.
Procedural History
The appellant purchased shares; dispute arose; respondent filed arbitration claim; Arbitral Tribunal awarded Rs. 49,900; appellant's first and second appeals dismissed; appellant filed Section 34 petition before City Civil Court which was rejected on 22.02.2002; appellant filed this appeal under Section 37 on 19.01.2009.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 2(1)(e), Section 34, Section 37
- Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948: Section 2(1), Section 2(2), Section 3
