Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who allowed Chamber Summons No. 905 of 2013 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, thereby revoking the leave granted to the Appellants under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1866. The Appellants had originally filed Arbitration Petition No. 1036 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief in relation to an arbitration agreement. The learned Single Judge held that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the cause of action arose in Pune, where the arbitration agreement was situated and where the parties resided. The Appellants appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench, after considering the submissions, noted that the Appellants and Respondents were family members residing in Pune, and the companies involved were also based in Pune. The arbitration agreement was entered into in Pune, and the disputes related to family arrangements and company matters in Pune. The mere fact that some respondents had a business presence in Mumbai or that the Appellants sought interim relief in Mumbai did not confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court. The court held that the cause of action for a Section 9 petition arises where the arbitration agreement is situated, and the leave granted under Clause XII was rightly revoked. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Clause XII of Letters Patent Act, 1866 - Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Revocation of Leave - The appellants filed a Section 9 petition in the Bombay High Court seeking interim relief in respect of an arbitration agreement. The learned Single Judge revoked the leave granted under Clause XII, holding that the cause of action arose in Pune, not Mumbai. The Division Bench upheld this, reasoning that the arbitration agreement was situated in Pune and the mere fact that the respondents resided or carried on business in Mumbai did not confer jurisdiction. Held that the court must examine the situs of the arbitration agreement and the cause of action for the Section 9 petition, which in this case was in Pune. (Paras 1-10, 20-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in revoking the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1866, on the ground that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge revoking the leave under Clause XII and holding that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Arbitration Petition. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Clause XII of Letters Patent Act
- 1866
- Cause of action for Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Place where arbitration agreement is situated
- Interim relief under Section 9
- Revocation of leave granted ex parte
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 53
APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 32 OF 2016 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 905 OF 2013 IN LETTERS PATENT PETITION NO. 226 OF 2013 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1036 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (LODGING) NO. 246 OF 2016 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 32 OF 2016
Anoop V. Mohta, G.S. Kulkarni
Mr. Rohan Cama with Ms. Smriti Singh and Ms. Upasana Mukharjee i/by Dastur Kalambi and Associates for the Appellants, Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Jain, with Mr. Dharam Jumani, Ms. Manik Joshi and Ms. Aditi Shukla i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Jain, with Mr. Dharam Jumani, Ms. Manik Joshi and Ms. Aditi Shukla i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Tejas Dande with Mr. Bharat Gadavi i/by Tejas Dande & Associates for Respondent No. 6
Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi, Ms. Sabina Anilkumar Sanghvi, Ms. Shibani Anilkumar Sanghvi
Mr. Chandrakant P. Sanghvi, Ms. Mina Chandrakant Sanghvi, Ms. Ruchi Chandrakant Sanghvi, Ms. Niyoshi Chandrakant Sanghvi, Mr. Rishi Chandrakant Sanghvi, Maharashtra Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Sanghvi HiLift Pvt. Ltd., Sanghvi Movers Ltd.
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 order revoking leave under Clause XII of Letters Patent Act, 1866.
Remedy Sought
The Appellants sought to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge revoking leave and dismissing the Arbitration Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The Appellants filed Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief in relation to an arbitration agreement. The Respondents filed Chamber Summons to revoke leave granted under Clause XII on the ground that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge allowed the Chamber Summons and revoked the leave, holding that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Arbitration Petition.
Issues
Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in revoking the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1866?
Whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the cause of action arose in Mumbai as the respondents carried on business in Mumbai and the interim relief was sought in Mumbai.
Respondents argued that the arbitration agreement was situated in Pune, all parties resided in Pune, and the disputes related to Pune-based companies, so the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The cause of action for a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arises where the arbitration agreement is situated. The mere fact that a party carries on business or resides within the jurisdiction of a court does not confer jurisdiction if the arbitration agreement and the disputes are located elsewhere. The court must examine the situs of the arbitration agreement and the cause of action for the Section 9 petition.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...
The learned Single Judge... revoked the leave granted to the Appellants under Clause XII of the Bombay High Court (Letters Patent) Act, 1866...
The Appellants and the Respondents and their relations with each other and the Companies in question are described in the Appeal.
Procedural History
The Appellants filed Arbitration Petition No. 1036 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act in the Bombay High Court. The Respondents filed Chamber Summons No. 905 of 2013 to revoke the leave granted under Clause XII. The learned Single Judge allowed the Chamber Summons on 22 December 2015. The Appellants appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, and the Division Bench heard the appeal and dismissed it on 1 February 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 37
- Bombay High Court (Letters Patent) Act, 1866: Clause XII
