IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5045 of 2007 Date of decision : 27.8.2009 Krishan Lal Garg … Petitioner Versus Punjab State Co-op Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.Sumeet Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Vinod K. Sharma, J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 8.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda vide which application moved under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner had challenged the award passed by respondent No.3 by invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, Chandigarh. Respondent No.1 on the other hand, had also filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act in the court at Chandigarh to challenge the award. The Arbitrator had conducted the proceedings at Chandigarh and the appointment was also made at Chandigarh. It was for this reason that the District Judge, Bathinda transferred the case for adjudication to Chandigarh. The learned District Judge, Bathinda thus refused to entertain the petition, even though the petition was returned by learned District Judge, CR No.5045 of 2007 Chandigarh, on the ground that the transfer of the case out side district was not within the jurisdiction of District Judge, Bathinda. On his refusal, the petition filed by respondent No.1 was entertained by District Judge, Chandigarh. Therefore, in given situation, it was the Court at Chandigarh which had the jurisdiction to entertain the objection petition under Section 42 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order impugned, is illegal, erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law as the petition has been rejected on the erroneous ground that the award has been set aside by the Court at Chandigarh without going into the merits of the case. This contention is patently erroneous as the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, in fact, set aside the award and there was no award against which objections could be entertained by the learned District Judge, Bathinda. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that order deserves to be set aside and objections decided on merit. This plea cannot be accepted. This Court has allowed CR No.4757 of 2006 today vide which order passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, has been set aside and case remanded back for adjudication on merit. Prima facie, the jurisdiction is that of Chandigarh Court as on refusal by learned District Judge, Bathinda, the Court at Chandigarh proceeded with the matter and finally set aside the award. No ground to interfere with the order. No merit. Dismissed. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] Judge 27.08.2009 sd 2 CR No.5045 of 2007 3