Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1945 (PNJ)

S. G. Stock Services Ltd. v. Uttam Company

2010-07-05

ALOK SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. (Oral):- Present petition is filed challenging order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the District Judge, Ludhiana in Arbitration Case No.10 of 2008, thereby holding that the Ludhiana Court has no jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act) and the same be returned to the applicant for presentation to the Delhi High Court. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner filed petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging the award dated 16.10.2007. Respondent No.1 moved an application for summary dismissal of the application on the ground that the same very award was challenged in OMP No.109 of 2008 before Hon’ble the High Court of Delhi. Since the matter was carried to Delhi High Court, hence same very award cannot be challenged before the Ludhiana Court. The District Judge, Ludhiana held that in view of filing of OMP No.109 of 2008, IA No.2189 of 2008 and FAO(OS) No.201 of 2008 before the Delhi High Court, present petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act ought to have been filed by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court only. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since all the cases mentioned in the objections were disposed of by the Delhi High Court without any notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed his petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act prior in time in Ludhiana Court, hence the Ludhiana Court has jurisdiction over the matter. He further states that in the event of getting notice from the Delhi High Court, petitioner would have approached the Delhi High Court and would have raised objections before the Delhi High Court about the jurisdiction. 4. On being asked as to why two Courts can exercise jurisdiction one at Delhi and one at Ludhiana against the same very award, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is ready to approach the Delhi High Court. However, in case he goes before the Delhi High Court right now, his petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act would be treated as time-barred. Apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. However, in case he goes before the Delhi High Court right now, his petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act would be treated as time-barred. Apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. If petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is filed prior in time well within the limitation then refilling of the same before the Delhi High Court in the light of the impugned judgement would not make it time-barred. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Delhi High Court by way of filing his petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, which is directed to be returned by the Ludhiana Court for refilling in the Delhi High Court and to move appropriate application in OMP No.109 of 2008, IA No.2189 of 2008 and FAO(OS) No.201 of 2008. In view of the observations made hereinabove, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforementioned. --------------