P. K. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The Court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam has directed an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940 to be made rule of the court overruling the objections preferred thereagainst. The objectors (respondents before us) preferred an appeal in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The Division Bench, which heard the appeal, formed an opinion that the cause of action relating to the subject-matter of arbitration and award could be said to have arisen only in the districts of Kollam or Pathanamthitta or Idukki and not in Ernakulam. If the subject-matter of arbitration would have been sought to be filed as a suit, it could never have been in a court at Ernakulam. In the opinion of the High Court, the hearing and the decree made by the Court of Subordinate Judge were vitiated for want of territorial jurisdiction. For this reason alone, the High Court set aside the decree and directed that either the award be returned to the arbitrator or all the proceedings be transferred to the competent court at Kottarakkara. The claimant has come up in appeal by special leave.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court cannot be countenanced. The situation is squarely covered by Sec. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court has noted in its judgement that an objection as to the want of territorial jurisdiction in the trial court was not taken up by any of the parties and certainly not by the objectors. The plea was not taken even in the memo of appeal filed in the High Court. Neither it was argued nor has it been found by the High Court that on account of the proceedings having been entertained by the trial court, the objectors in the trial court (i.e. the respondents before us) have suffered any prejudice and consequent failure of justice.