CHETHAN BHANDARY Vs. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent. Since the subject matter was covered by an agreement, which had an arbitral clause, matter was referred to sole arbitrator one Mr. M.V. Badrinath in terms of the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The sole arbitrator passed an award directing the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 8,74,750/- while the claim of the respondent No. 1 as against the petitioner was rejected. Since the 1st respondent had a registered office in Mumbai, a petition was filed in Arbitration Petition No. 13/08 before the High Court of Judicature at. Bombay under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) The petitioner entered appearance and filed his objections to the proceedings inter alia contending that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter inasmuch as the dispute had arisen in the jurisdiction of Karnataka. The preliminary objection of the petitioner was accepted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2008, directed the return of the petition for presentation before the proper Court. It. is not in dispute that, the plaint in the arbitral suit was returned to the 1st respondent on 24.02.2009. During this interregnum, having regard to the order passed by the Bombay High Court, the respondent filed a petition, which would be termed as a fresh petition on 20th March 2009. The 1st respondent's case is that it could not take back the papers at the earliest and in these circumstances a fresh petition was filed on 20th March 2009. The petitioner being served with the notice of the arbitration suit, again appeared before the Court and raised a preliminary objection on 26.05.2009 to the effect that the suit which is filed by the respondent is barred by statute and the same is required to be dismissed. The said objection did not find favour with the learned Trial Judge who pursuant to his order dated 25.06.2009 rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioner and held that the Arbitration Suit 22/2009 filed in Bangalore was within time. The said contention was raised having regard to the scope of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner is questioning the said order.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Bhandary, party-in-person as well as Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.