Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
MADHO S/o SHRIHARI DESHPANDE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MADHAO S/o TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1988
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 1347 1988 SCR (3) 685
1988 SCC (3) 511 JT 1988 (2) 222
1988 SCALE (1)905
ACT:
Arbitration Act, 1940: Section 2(c)-Award-Filing of-
Jurisdiction of Court-Court where subject matter of dispute
situated has jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Sections 17 and 20-Award of
Arbitrator-Filing of in Court-Proper Court is Court where
subject matter of dispute situate.
HEADNOTE:
An Award of an Arbitrator in respect of properties
situated mostly at Warora, Chandrapur and only a bit of
property situated at Nagpur, did not mention the place of
execution. The arbitrator was resident of Nagpur. The award
was filed in the Civil Court at Nagpur. The Civil Judge held
that only a bit of property situated at Nagpur and the
residence of arbitrator at Nagpur did not give local
jurisdiction to the Court at Nagpur and dismissed the
application saying that the award ought to have been filed
in the Court of Civil Judge, Chandrapur. The revision
application was summarily rejected by the Bombay High Court.
The appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the
Bombay High Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
^
HELD: 1. The Court at Nagpur had undoubtedly part of
the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as part of the
dispute which was the subject-matter of the dispute was
within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Court. This view is
further corroborated by Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act,
1940. [687F]
1.2 In view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 20 of
the Code of Civil procedure, the order of the Civil Judge
that the award be returned for presentation to the proper
Court is erroneous. The High Court was also in error in not
entertaining the application and in not setting aside the
order of the Civil Judge. [687F, G-H]
686
[The Court set aside the orders of both the Civil Judge
and the High Court and directed the Civil Judge to proceed
with the objection to the award filed in his Court at Nagpur
and dispose it of as quickly as possible.] [688A-B]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1538 of
1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.86 of the High
Court of Bombay in Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in C.R.A. No.
100/86.
Y.S. Dharmadhikari, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande
for the Petitioners.
S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B.K. Saluja for the
Respondents. (Not Present).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. In this case notice had been
issued indicating that the matter would be disposed of at
the notice stage. The respondents have not appeared.
Special leave granted and the appeal is disposed as
hereunder.
The only question involved in this appeal is whether
the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, was right in
rejecting the revision application summarily when the
learned Civil Judge had held that the award was wrongly
presented in his Court and he had no jurisdiction to go into
the question of validity of the award. The facts are that
there was a reference to an arbitrator. The award was filed
in the Civil Court at Nagpur and objection was filed against
the said award. The short question upon which the learned
District Judge dismissed the application was that Nagpur was
not the Court which had jurisdiction to entertain
application. He held in his order, inter alia, as follows:
"Most of the parties to the agreement of reference
are the residents of Warora in the District of
Chandrapur. On the careful scrutiny of agreement
of reference, the place of execution of the said
agreement seems to have been omitted. I am quite
unable to understand as to how the glaring mistake
in respect of omission of place of execution of
the agreement has been committed. It seems that
the place of
687
execution of the agreement is deliberately omitted
with intend to file the award in the Civil Court
at Nagpur as the arbitrator is the resident of
Nagpur. For his convenience to file the award in
the Civil Court at Nagpur, the place of execution
of the agreement seems to have been omitted.
Moreover, it appears that the agreement for
reference appears to have been prepared and
drafted at Nagpur as stamp paper was purchased at
Nagpur. It does not mean that the parties executed
agreement for reference at Nagpur as the most of
the parties are the residents of Warora and most
of the property except the house on plot No. 94,
at Shiwaji Nagar, Nagpur, is situated at Warora in
Chandrapur District. An adverse inference can be
drawn that the agreement of reference was executed
at Warora in Chandrapur District which comes
within the local jurisdiction of the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Chandrapur."
The learned Civil Judge held that the award passed by
the arbitrator ought to have been filed in the court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur. The learned Civil
Judge held that only a bit of property situated at Nagpur
and the residence of arbitrator at Nagpur did not give local
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
jurisdiction to the Court at Nagpur. He accordingly
dismissed the application with the order that award be
returned for presentation to the proper Court having legal
jurisdiction. We are of the opinion that the learned Civil
Judge was in error in view of the provisions of Sections 17
and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in holding as he did.
In view of the facts mentioned undoubtedly part of the
dispute which was the subject matter of dispute was within
the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Court. This view is further
corroborated by the Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act,
1940. The Court at Nagpur had undoubtedly part of the
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The High Court had summarily rejected the revision
application against the said order of the learned Civil
Judge. The High Court, in our opinion, also was in error in
not entertaining the application and in not setting aside
the order of the learned Civil Judge. In the premises and in
the facts of this, we are of the opinion, that the High
Court and the learned Civil Judge were in error. Their
orders are therefore set aside.
688
The appeal is allowed. Let the learned Civil Judge
proceed with the objection to the award filed in his Court
at Nagpur. The said objection may be disposed of as quickly
as possible. There will be no order as to costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
689