MOHANLAL AGARWAL Vs. MANJAN DEVI PATNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner, having suffered an arbitral award dated February 28, 2018, preferred an application challenging the said award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), thereby giving rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 298 of 2018.

(2.) The present opposite party nos. 1 to 11, being respondent nos. 1 to 11 in the said miscellaneous cases, filed an application challenging the maintainability of the case before the District Judge at Alipore, by relying on Section 42 of the 1996 Act. The trial Judge allowed such application challenging maintainability and returned the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act to the petitioner for presenting before the concerned court having jurisdiction. The said order, dated August 14, 2018, is under challenge in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the term "Court", as used in Section 42, has to be seen in the context of definition of "Court", as given in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act. If such definition is taken into consideration, the court having jurisdiction to take up the challenge under Section 34 of the said Act would be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject"matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal civil court, or any court of small causes, in the case of domestic arbitrations.