AMARESH CHOUDHURY Vs. GOPINATH KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court:-This was an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying inter alia for appointment of a Receiver and an order of injunction in a dispute arising out of a partnership. When the application was moved an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to receive, try and determine this application was raised whereupon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for liberty to file a supplementary affidavit in order to bring on record that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court as also to include a prayer for leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. Such leave was granted. A supplementary affidavit filed affirmed by one Sri Amaresh Chaudhury on 23.4.2002. Even after filing of the supplementary affidavit the learned advocate appearing for the respondent pressed his point with regard to want of jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining this application. Accordingly, the parties were heard on the point of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

(2.) Mr. Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that an application under section 11 for appointment of an Arbitrator, registered as AP 303 of 2001, made by the petitioner in this Court is pending. He therefore contended that by virtue of section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 all subsequent applications are required to be made in this Court alone. It would be convenient to notice section 42 of the Act which provides as follows :

(3.) An alternative submission of Mr. Basu was that a part of the cause of action arose within the ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction of this Court and therefore leave should be granted to make the application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in this Court. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent has disputed both the submissions made by Mr. Bose.