Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, proprietors of Soni Medical Stores and Ashish Agencies, filed writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging three identical orders dated 18 November 2010 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik. The orders overruled the petitioners' preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The background involves awards passed by an arbitrator in suits filed by the parties for recovery of amounts due. The awards were made decrees by the District Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the Section 34 applications on the ground that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. The court held that since the awards were passed after the 1996 Act came into force and the proceedings were pending, the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Section 34. The preliminary objections were rightly rejected, and the writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Maintainability - The District Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an award that was made a decree under the 1940 Act, as the award was passed after the 1996 Act came into force and the proceedings were pending. The preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction was overruled. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an award that was made a rule of court under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The orders dated 18th November, 2010 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, overruling the preliminary objections are upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of District Court under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Maintainability of objections under Section 34
- Transition from Arbitration Act 1940 to 1996 Act
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 44
Writ Petition No.2379 of 2011, Writ Petition No.2380 of 2011, Writ Petition No.2381 of 2011
Shri. R. D. Soni with Ms. S. V. Sonavane & Ms. Sadiya Bargir for the Petitioners; Shri. R. B. Raghuvanshi i/by Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for the Respondent
Hariprasad Mohanlal Soni, Ramvilas Mohanlal Soni, Ashish Agencies, Haridayal Mohanlal Soni
Malegaon Municipal Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 227 challenging orders rejecting preliminary objections regarding maintainability of petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to challenge the orders of the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, which overruled their preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the petitions filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioners raised preliminary objections that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 34 of the 1996 Act because the awards were made decrees under the 1940 Act.
Previous Decisions
The Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, by orders dated 18th November, 2010, overruled the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners vide Exh.12, 13 and 14.
Issues
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an award that was made a rule of court under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Section 34 applications because the awards were made decrees under the 1940 Act.
Respondent argued that the District Court had jurisdiction as the awards were passed after the 1996 Act came into force.
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court has jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the award was made a decree under the 1940 Act, provided the award was passed after the 1996 Act came into force and the proceedings were pending.
Judgment Excerpts
The above Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to three identical orders all dated 18th November, 2010 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, by which orders the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioners as regards the maintainability of the Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be overruled.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed suits against the respondent Municipal Corporation for recovery of amounts. The respondent also filed suits against the petitioners. The matters were referred to arbitration, and awards were passed. The awards were filed in the District Court for decree under the 1940 Act, and decrees were passed. The respondent then filed petitions under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging the awards. The petitioners raised preliminary objections as to maintainability, which were overruled by the District Judge on 18th November, 2010. The petitioners challenged these orders by way of writ petitions under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940:
- Constitution of India: Article 227
