ARBP1033-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1033 OF 2010 S.R.Themocole (EPS) Packaging Pvt Ltd .. Petitioner Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd .. Respondent Mr.Herbert Noronha for petitioner Mr.Milind Sathaye for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th January 2011. P.C.: . This petition was placed for dismissal today. 2 However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appeared and prayed that no order of dismissal in default can be passed as he is ready to argue the matter. 3 Mr.Sathe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition in this Court. 4 Inviting my attention to section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is submitted by him that it is the District Court at Pune which will ARBP1033-10 2 be having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration, if the same had been the subject matter of the suit. 5 He submits that the petitioner and respondent, both, are based at Pune. The cause of action had arisen at Pune. The arbitral proceedings were held at Pune and even the award has been made at Pune. 6 He submits that if any question forming the subject matter of the arbitration had been the subject matter of a suit, such a suit would have had to be filed in the competent Civil Court at Pune. Therefore, this petition challenging the award should be instituted in the District Court at Pune. 7 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to point out as to how the subject petition could have been filed in this Court as he did not controvert any of the above factual matters. 8 He prayed that appropriate order be passed in the light of the preliminary objection. 9 Considering the undisputed factual position brought to my notice, it is clear that this arbitration petition could not have been filed in this Court. The challenge to the award should have been raised by filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Court at Pune. 10 In the above circumstances, the petition is directed to be returned to the ARBP1033-10 3 advocate for presentation to the District Court at Pune. It would be open for the petitioner to point out that since the petition was already filed in this Court within the period of limitation, the benefit of section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 be extended to the petitioner. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. 11 Petition is directed to be returned to the petitioner’s advocate. 12 Registry to act upon an authenticated copy of the order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)