DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BANSAL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CS(OS) 2340/2013 and IA No. 19132/2013 (u/s. 151 CPC)

(2.) THIS is a suit filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in short (1940 Act) . The prayer made in the suit is that a direction be issued to the arbitrator, i.e., defendant no. 2, to file the award along with complete arbitral record in this court. Notice in the matter was issued on 11.12.2013. Since then defendant no. 1 has entered appearance in the matter. The arbitral record has also been received. The counsel for defendant no. 1 evidently raised objection to the jurisdiction of the court, at the hearing held on 28.07.2014. My predecessor on that date recorded the objection of defendant no. 1, qua pecuniary jurisdiction, by noting that the award in question is of the value of Rs. 5.70 lacs.

(3.) IN this context two issues arise for consideration. First, as to which of the two Acts would apply to the instant case, i.e., whether the 1940 Act or the 1996 Act? Second, as to whether this court would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?