NLC INDIA LIMITED Vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nlc India Limited and SICAL logistics Limited have a contractual arrangement with regard to transportation of coal. Disputes have arisen between them. Since the contract provides for resolving the dispute through arbitral process, the respondent herein has resorted to the same. In fact, the respondent has already nominated a former Judge of this Court as their Arbitrator. The respondent also filed Arbitration O.P.No.72 of 2018 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, on 04.10.2018. They also filed four interim applications in the said Arbitration O.P. Ex-parte interim orders were granted in all these four interim applications on 11.10.2018. They are challenged in these Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) Shri.Isaac Mohanlal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners first contended that the orders impugned in these civil revision petitions are patently without jurisdiction. This was because they were passed not by the Principal District Judge but by the Additional District Judge who was only holding full additional charge as Principal District Judge. He drew the attention of this Court to Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which defines the expression "court". It is clear from the said definition that "court" would mean the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District and does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court. In the memorandum of grounds also it had been pointedly contended that the jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Act vests only with the Principal District Judge and not with the Additional District Judge even if he is holding additional charge as the Principal District Judge. He placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Calcutta reported in (Cal), Manu/WB/0651/2015 (National Highway Authority of India vs. B.Seenaiah & Company (Projects) Ltd, 2016 1 ARBLR 50).

(3.) I am however unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by Shri.M.R.Venkatesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the aforesaid decision has been overruled by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the decision reported in, Manu/WB/0424/2016 (West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation and ors vs. Impression and Ors, 2016 3 RCR(Civ) 859). The Hon'ble Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as follows :