arbp1081-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1081 OF 2010 Union of India .. Petitioner Versus Swadeshi Karyalaya Textiles (P) Ltd. And Anr. .. Respondents Mr.S.R.Rajguru for petitioner Mr.Deepak Thapar for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY 2011. P.C.: 1] On this petition notice was issued as the respondent was not present. On notice, respondent is represented and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2] He submits that this Court on its Original Side will not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition because on an earlier occasion between the same parties and under the same agreement, a reference was made to sole arbitrator, who made an award dated 7th February 1996 at Mumbai disallowing the claim. That award was made subject matter of arbp1081-10.doc 2 challenge before the Dist. Court, Tees Hazari, New Delhi. The Dist. Court directed that an arbitrator be appointed again. The award was made by the arbitrator appointed in pursuance of the order of Dist. Court, New Delhi on 23rd March 2010. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that the parties have agreed that a reference to the Arbitrtator upon remittance shall be treated as one under Arbitration Act, 1996 but in any event, either by virtue of section 42 of the 1996 Act or by virtue of section 34 of 1940 Act, the Court competent to entertain and try any petition challenging the award would be the one at Delhi. 3] It is not disputed by Mr.Rajguru that the Dist. Court, Tees Hazari made an order setting aside the earlier order, although, the award was made at Mumbai and remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator to be appointed in pursuance of the order of the Dist. Court, New Delhi. He submits that on remittance the award dated 24th March 2010 is rendered at Mumbai and, therefore, this Court is competent to entertain and try the petition. He submits that the principle underlying section 42 is not in any way diluted or whittled down merely because the petition is filed here. 4] Having heard the learned Counsel for parties in the peculiar arbp1081-10.doc 3 facts of this case, I find merit in the preliminary objection. Even if the award made earlier on 7th February 1996 was at Mumbai, the petition to challenge the same was filed in the Dist. Court at New Delhi. That petition was filed by respondent No.1. At that point of time, no objection was raised by Union of India and the order made on that petition on 12th May 2009 gained finality. Pursuant to that order the Arbitration was held afresh, may be at Mumbai, but once the challenge to the earlier award, although, made at Mumbai was entertained at New Delhi in terms of the statutory provisions brought to my notice and the principles underlying thereunder, it would be in the interest of justice that the present petition be decided by the competent court at New Delhi. In these circumstances and finding that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition, the petition is returned to the petitioner’s Advocate for being presented before the competent court, at New Delhi. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)