Case Note & Summary
The review petitioner, M/s. Raman Feedmills, sought recall of an order dated 24th August 2013 passed by the designate of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allowed the arbitration application filed by the respondent, M/s. Japfa Comfeeed India Limited (now converted into M/s. Japfa Comfeeed India Private Limited), and appointed an arbitrator. The petitioner had earlier filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which granted liberty to seek review of the order. The review petition raised two main contentions: first, that the application under Section 11(6) ought to have been filed before the appropriate court at Pune, where the cause of action arose, and not before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court; second, that the respondent had already filed an application under Section 8 of the Act in a suit filed by the petitioner in Haryana, which was pending, and therefore the Section 11 application was not maintainable. The court rejected the first contention, noting that the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court had delegated powers to a designate judge to decide Section 11 applications, including those where the cause of action arose at Pune. Regarding the second contention, the court observed that the pendency of a Section 8 application in a suit does not bar the maintainability of a Section 11 application for appointment of an arbitrator. The court found no merit in the review petition and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - The application under Section 11(6) was filed before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, who had delegated powers to a designate judge to decide such matters, including those where cause of action arose at Pune. Held that the application was maintainable before the Bombay High Court and not required to be filed at Pune (Paras 4).
B) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Maintainability - The petitioner had filed a suit in Haryana and the respondent had filed an application under Section 8 in that suit, which was pending. The court held that the pendency of a Section 8 application does not bar the maintainability of a Section 11(6) application for appointment of an arbitrator. Held that the review petition was devoid of merits and dismissed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court when the cause of action arose at Pune, and whether the pendency of an application under Section 8 of the Act in a suit filed by the petitioner bars the maintainability of the Section 11 application.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. The order dated 24th August 2013 appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Maintainability of Section 11 application despite pending Section 8 application
- Delegation of powers by Chief Justice
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (11) 33
Review Petition (L) No. 8372 of 2013 in Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2012
Mr. Rushabh Shah, a/w. Ms. Rita Yadav, i/b. Raval Shah & Co. for the Petitioner; Mr. Manish K. Vig, i/b. Mr. Tejas Dande for the Respondent.
M/s. Japfa Comfeeed India Limited (now M/s. Japfa Comfeeed India Private Limited)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition seeking recall of an order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought recall of the order dated 24th August 2013 passed by the designate of the Chief Justice allowing the arbitration application and appointing an arbitrator.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the application under Section 11(6) ought to have been filed at Pune and that the pendency of a Section 8 application in a suit barred the Section 11 application.
Previous Decisions
The designate of the Chief Justice had allowed the arbitration application and appointed an arbitrator. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition, which was withdrawn with liberty to seek review.
Issues
Whether the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court when the cause of action arose at Pune?
Whether the pendency of an application under Section 8 of the Act in a suit filed by the petitioner bars the maintainability of the Section 11 application?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the application under Section 11(6) ought to have been filed before the appropriate court at Pune, not before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
The petitioner argued that the respondent had filed an application under Section 8 in a suit filed by the petitioner, which was pending, and thus the Section 11 application was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
The application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court even if the cause of action arose at Pune, as the Chief Justice had delegated powers to a designate judge to decide such matters. The pendency of an application under Section 8 of the Act in a suit does not bar the maintainability of a Section 11 application for appointment of an arbitrator.
Judgment Excerpts
In my view, thus there is no substance in the first submission made by the learned counsel that application under section 11(6) ought to have been filed before the appropriate court at Pune and not before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this court.
In so far as second submission of the learned counsel is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit... the respondent had filed an application under section 8... the said application is pending. On perusal of the application filed under section 11, it is clear that the respondent... In my view, there is no substance in the second submission also.
Procedural History
The respondent filed an arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was allowed by the designate of the Chief Justice on 24th August 2013, appointing an arbitrator. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to seek review. The petitioner then filed this review petition.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 6, Section 8, Section 11, Section 11(6)
