HIRA ASSOCIATES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed that before the learned Arbitrator made his award the applicant had moved an application under section 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'), for the revocation of his authority and that application is pending in the Court of Shri J.D. Chandana, Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh. The respondents had put in appearance in that application and the same is being contested. Learned Advocate-General has pointed out that an objection has been raised in the proceedings of that application that the Civil Court at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction. Without meaning to opine on that question all that need be said is that the contract agreement under which the work has been carried on was admittedly executed at Chandigarh.

(2.) After the learned Arbitrator made his award an application for filing the same in Court and making it a rule of the Court was filed by the Union of India-respondent in the Civil Court at Amritsar. Another application under Section 14(2) of the Act was filed by the applicants subsequently at Chandigarh. Section 31(4) of the Act clearly lays down that where proceedings on an application under the Act pertaining to a reference, have been taken in a particular court, that Court alone shall have the jurisdiction to entertain subsequent applications arising out of that reference or the award made therein.

(3.) Consequently I find force in this application which is allowed. The application, Union of India v. M/s. Hira Associates pending in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar is transferred to the Court of Shri J.D. Chandana. Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh, for its decision on merits along with the other two applications which are already pending in this Court.