OMP.No. 205/2008 Page 1 of 3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP.No. 205/2008 % Date of decision: 09.02.2009 M/S. RENASONIC E SOLUTION LTD. .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Advocate Versus M/S.VOLTAS LTD. AND ANR .... Respondents Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan and Ms. Ruchi Singh, Advocates CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. (ORAL) 1. The respondents immediately on service on first day itself i.e. on 31st October, 2008 had contended that the court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction competent to entertain the present petition was not this Court and this petition ought to have been filed in the District Court. The counsel for the petitioner had then sought adjournment to consider the matter. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has today relied upon an office order dated 22nd August, 2003 of this Court transferring the pending suits and other proceedings on the original side of this Court up to the value of Rs. 20 lacs to the district/subordinate courts except inter alia arbitration cases where Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is attracted. It is argued that in the present case the arbitrator was OMP.No. 205/2008 Page 2 of 3 appointed vide order of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act and for this reason this petition under Section 34 of the Act shall also lie before this Court. 3. The question still is whether Section 42 covers within its ambit an application under Section 11(6) of the Act. 4. The said question is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Rodemadan India Limited Vs. International Trade Expo Center Limited (2006) 11 SCC 651 has held in para 8 of the judgment that the power under Section 11(6) of the Act is the power of a designate referred to under the Section and not that of the Court; albeit it has now been held to have judicial characteristics by reason of the judgment in SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. 2005 (8) SCC 618. 5. It was further held in para 25 of the judgment that neither the Chief Justice nor his designate under Section 11(6) is a “court” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and further that a bar of jurisdiction under Section 42 is only intended to apply to a “court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. 6. The said judgment of the Apex Court was followed by Single Judge of this Court in UOI vs. S.R. Constructions Co. (144) 2007 DLT 580 and it was held that mere passing of an order under Section 11(6) of the Act by this Court would not vest this Court with the exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act to entertain the objections under Section 34 of the Act, if otherwise this Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it being the admitted position that the claims before the arbitrator in the present case were of less than Rs. 20 lacs, the subject matter of the arbitration, had the same been the subject of the suit, would have been entertainable by a Court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction and not OMP.No. 205/2008 Page 3 of 3 by this Court, the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction whereof is in excess of Rs. 20 lacs. 8. Accordingly, as requested by the counsel for the petitioner, the petition along with the original documents, if any, is ordered to be returned to the counsel for the petitioner in accordance with law. The counsels inform that the District Judge having jurisdiction to entertain the petition would be the District Judge (South). Accordingly, it is directed that the parties to appear before the District Judge (South) on 8th May, 2009 by which date the petitioner to take back the petition and the original documents, if any, from this Court and to file the same before the District Judge (South). If either of the parties fails to appear before the District Judge (South) on the date fixed, notice be issued to that party. 9. The certified copy of the petition and the original documents be prepared in an expeditious manner. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J February 09, 2009 rb