PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD , CHANDIGARH Vs. VILKHU & SONS, ENGINEERS & GOVT CONTRACTORS, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, dated November, 8, 1986, whereby the application filed under sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called the Act) for directing the arbitrator to file the award and to make the same the rule of the Court was dismissed on the ground that the said Court had no jurisdiction to decide the said petition.

(2.) The Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. the appellant, filed the petition under sections 14 and 17 of the Act for directing the arbitrator to file the award dated February 1, 1985, and to make it the rule of the Court. The matter was referred to the arbitrator as a dispute had arisen between the parties. After the said award was filed in Court, the respondent, M/s. Vilkhu & Sons, Engineers and Govt. Contractors, filed objections against the said award. A preliminary objection was raised therein that the Court had no jurisdiction as earlier, time was extended by Shri Jagroop Singh, the then Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh. On merits, it was pleaded that the award was liable to be set aside on the grounds that the arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings; he had a biased mind being an employee of the corporation; the award was a procured one; it was invalid, the arbitrator was interested in the subject-matter of the dispute; he had monetary dealings with the petitioner in spite of repeated requests; the arbitrator did not inspect the site; he did not read the documentary evidence and that the award was given after the expiry of the statutory period of four months. These objections were vehemently resisted by the appellant. In reply, it was asserted that the Court had the jurisdiction to try the petition. It was denied that the arbitrator had misconducted, as alleged. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence come to the conclusion that the award was not liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned in paragraphs 1(a) to (m) of the objection petition, but the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as it was the Court of Shri Jagroop Singh, the then Subordinate Judge, First Class, where the same could be filed. In view of the said findings, it was directed that the award as well as the arbitration proceedings file, be returned for presentation in the proper Court. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed this appeal in this Court whereas the respondent has filed cross-objections challenging the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that the award was valid and the arbitrator had not misconducted, as alleged.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Section 31 of the Act, the application under the Act could be filed in the Court competent to entertain it and that Court alone shall have the jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. According to the learned counsel, the earlier application was filed in the Court at Chandigarh. Similarly, the present application under sections 14 and 17 was also filed in the Court at Chandigarh. Therefore, the view taken by the Trial Court that only the Court of Shri Jagroop Singh, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, was competent to entertain the application, was wholly misconceived. According to the learned counsel, section 31 of the Act, refers to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and not to any particular Court at the same place.