KOLKATA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNITED BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) was made before the learned District Judge, Barasat. This application was dismissed on the ground that the Arbitrator was nominated by the learned Chief Justice under section 11 sub-section (6) of the Act and as such, it is the Court alone has jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of all other Courts including Barasat Court are excluded by reason of section 42 of the Act. This order has since been challenged in this appeal. Notices were issued by the respondents who had appeared in this matter. The question involves a question of law on admitted facts. Therefore, the Court proposed to hear out the appeal itself.

(2.) By consent of the parties, this matter is treated as on day's list for hearing. The parties had addressed the Court on merits of the case.

(3.) Dr. Tapas Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that while discharging function under section 11 sub-section (6) of the Act, the Hon'ble Chief Justice discharges an administrative function. The mischief of section 42 is attracted only when an application is made and that too before a Court. Such Court must be Court within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act. Unless these tests are satisfied, the mischief of section 42 will not be attracted. A plain reading of sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Act clearly indicates that the function provided under sub section (6) is not a function of a Court. He had elaborated his submission. He had relied on some decisions to support his contention. We shall refer to those decisions at appropriate stage.