Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala vs Bahadur Sanjana

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner, a former partner of M/s. Electronic Lab, challenged the judgment and order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The original dispute between the partners was settled by a consent decree dated 15.10.2009 passed by the Bombay High Court in Suit No. 1262 of 2007, whereby the seat of arbitration was expressly fixed at Ahmedabad. The arbitrator passed a preliminary award dated 16.01.2020 holding that the petitioner was an agent and not a partner of the firm.

The respondents contended that by participating in proceedings under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act before the Bombay High Court without objecting to jurisdiction, the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, thereby vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the courts at Mumbai. The District Court accepted this contention and held it lacked territorial jurisdiction, prompting the petitioner to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution before the Gujarat High Court.

The High Court examined whether an application under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act filed before the Bombay High Court for taking evidence could oust the jurisdiction of the court at the seat of arbitration under Section 34 of the Act, and whether the District Court had erred in going beyond the averments in the application while deciding a plea under Order 7 Rule 10 and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Catchwords: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 · Section 34 · Section 27 · Section 42 · seat of arbitration · territorial jurisdiction · consent decree · partnership dispute · Article 227 · Order 7 Rule 10 · Order 7 Rule 11 · submission to jurisdiction · evidence assistance · court having jurisdiction