| |
Khaleel
Ahmed Dakhani vs. Hatti Gold Mines Co.Ltd.
|
(Even while the application to set aside the arbitral award
was pending in a Bangalore court under Section 34, the Appellant filed
an Execution Petition in Raichur Court to enforce the arbitral award
and attach the properties of the Respondent)
|
Case Reference
:
Civil Appeal No.2232 of 2000, decided on March, 27,
2000.
|
.
Judges :
Justice D.P.Wadhwa and Justice Doraiswamy Raju
|
Parties :
Khaleel Ahmed Dakhani (Appellant)Vs. Hatti Gold Mines
Co.Ltd.
(Respondent).
|
Question of Law :
|
| In terms of the arbitration clause contained
in an agreement between the parties to a dispute, if the parties
have agreed that a particular court alone would have jurisdiction
to entertain any claim for enforcement of the Arbitral Award,
whether the court where the cause of action has arisen can entertain
the application for enforcement of the arbitral award. |
| |
Gist of the Case:
|
| A contract was awarded by the Respondent
Government Company to the Appellant for construction of a building
in Raichur. Dispute arose between the parties and the matter
was referred to an Arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration clause
contained in the agreement between them. The arbitration clause
stipulated that only courts in Bangalore would have the jurisdiction
to entertain any claim for enforcement of the award. The arbitration
proceedings were held in Bangalore and the arbitrator passed
an award allowing some of the claims of the Appellant. The Respondent
filed an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 in
the court of Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore for setting
aside the award. The Appellant filed a caveat under Section
148-A CPC and an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996
before the said Judge. During the pendency of the Respondent’s
application under Section 34, the Appellant filed an application
under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 before the court of Principal
District Judge, Raichur for execution of the arbitral award
without referring therein to the pendency of the application
under Section 34 in the Bangalore court. When the court at Raichur
issued warrants of attachments it was not aware of the pendency
of the application of the Respondent under Section 34 in the
court at Bangalore. However, when the Respondent filed application
before the Principal District Judge, Raichur for lifting the
order of attachment in view of the pendency of their application
under Section 34 for setting aside the award, the learned Principal
District Judge, Raichur held that the court at Bangalore had
no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34
and dismissed the application of the Respondent and confirmed
the order of attachment. The Respondent went to the High Court
in revision. The High Court allowed the revision of the Respondent
and set aside the orders of the Principal District Judge, Raichur.
This appeal is directed against the said judgement of the High
Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal stating that since
the award had not attained finality and the proceedings for
setting aside the award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996
were still pending with the court at Bangalore, the Principal
District Judge, Raichur should have stayed his hands and not
entertained the execution application by the appellant. |
Citation :
(2000) 3 SCC 755
|
|
|
********* |
|