JAIN UDYOG LTD Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant who has sought review of the order of this Court dated 23.7.2010.

(2.) The argument on the review opened with the contention that the application moved by the applicant was under Section 11(6) and not under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Considering the contents of the order sought to be reviewed, it would make no difference whatsoever whether the application is under Sub-Section 6 or Sub-Section 4 of the Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, because in both the Sub-sections the word used is the "Chief Justice". According to the order sought to be reviewed, the "Chief Justice" must be the "Chief Justice" of the High Court having jurisdiction over the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the arbitration.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited v. Prasad Trading Co., 1991 4 SCC 270 for the proposition about where the cause of action or its part can be said to have arisen.