Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise March 27 To April 3, 2022

SUBJECT INDEX Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement, the parties might, by agreement, decide to refer all disputes to any one Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, which might otherwise have had jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The parties cannot, however, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. (Para 47) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only if the agreement of the parties was construed to provide for seat/place of arbitration in India, would Part-I of the 1996 Act be applicable. If the seat/place were outside India, Part-I would not apply, even though the venue of a few sittings may have been in India, or the cause of action may have arisen in India. (Para 36) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seat and Venue - Sittings at various places are relatable to venue. It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation. (Para 44, 45) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Special leave petition against an order of the Calcutta High Court, allowing an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator - Allowed - Calcutta High Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 and 11(6) - Section 42 cannot possibly have any application to an application under Section 11(6), which necessarily has to be made before a High Court, unless the earlier application was also made in a High Court. (Para 32) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 - The Section has obviously been enacted to prevent the parties from being dragged into proceedings in different Courts, when more than one Court has jurisdiction. Where with respect to any arbitration agreement, any application under Part I of the A&C Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement, and the arbitral proceedings, would have to be made in that Court and in no other Court, unless, of course, the Court in which the first application had been instituted, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The Section which starts with a non obstante clause, is binding irrespective of any other law for the time being in force, and irrespective of any other provision in Part I of the A&C Act. (Para 31) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 144 - Appeal against Division Bench direction that the State shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners - Dismissed - By applying Section 144 CPC also, the amount paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been set aside by the Division Bench is required to be refunded/returned by the original writ petitioners. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise March 27 To April 3, 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags