RAVINDRA BALAJI GOVINDWAR Vs. ASHOK DHOBLE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 151 of 2013.

(2.) The facts in so far as they are relevant for adjudication of the prayers made in the writ petition are that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 5 is in respect of Annual General Meeting of the Indian Dental Association that was held on 24.12.2011. The validity of aforesaid Annual General meeting was the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner on one side and the respondent nos. 1 to 5 on the other. The respondent no.6 acted as arbitrator in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act). An award came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator on 21.12.2013. By said award it was declared that the Annual General Meeting held on 24.12.2011 was illegal and had been held in violation of provisions of the constitution of the Association. The petitioner being aggrieved by aforesaid award challenged the same in proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act before the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur. The learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur, by order dated 20.04.2013 held that in view of provisions of Section 2(1)(e) of the said Act, the jurisdiction to entertain said application did not lie before the Court at Nagpur. The application was directed to be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the Court at Bombay. This order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal District Judge erred in holding that the jurisdiction for aforesaid proceedings did not lie before the Court at Nagpur. He submitted that two earlier proceedings under provisions of Section 9 of the said Act had been filed and entertained at Nagpur itself and hence in terms of Section 42 of the said Act all further proceedings thereafter were required to be entertained at Nagpur itself. He submitted that in the earlier proceedings no objection to the jurisdiction of the Court at Nagpur had been raised. By placing reliance upon two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in M/s Sarkar Enterprise Vs. M/s Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd., 2002 AIR(Cal) 65 and Nissho Iwai Corporation Vs. Veejay Impex and others, 2000 AIR(Cal) 207, it was submitted that the learned Principal District Judge erred in holding otherwise.