KHALEEL AHMED DAKHANI versus THE HATTI GOLD MINES CO. LTD.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 27-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KHALEEL AHMED DAKHANI 
A 
v. 
THE HATTI GOLD MINES CO. LTD. 
MARCH 27, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWA AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : 
Ss. 11, 34-Govemment Company-Awarding contract for construction 
of building in Raichur district-Dispute between parties-Arbitration-Award-
C 
Application by company to set aside award.filed in Civil Court at Bangalore- · 
Thereafter contractor filing execution application in District Court, Raichur-
Raichur court holding that Banglore court had no jurisdiction, and ordering 
attachment of properties of company-Held, Raichur court erred in holing that 
Bangalore court had no jurisdiction-Application u/s. 34 having been filed 
earlier, Raichur court should not have entertained the execution application. 
D 
The appellant, a building contractor, was awarded a contract by the 
respondent, Government a company in Karnataka, for construction of a 
school building in District Raichur. Clause 35 of the agreement constitut-
ing the arbitration clause provided that only courts at Bangalore would 
have jurisdiction in the matter, Since there arose snme disputes, an 
arbitrator was appointed under S.11 of the Arbitration aud Conciliation 
Act, 1996. Arbitration proceedings were held at Bangalore and an award 
was made. The company filed in the Court of Principal City Civil Judge, 
Bangalore an application under S.34 of the Act for setting aside the 
award. Thereafter the contractor filed an application for execution of the 
award in the Court of Principal District Judge, Raichur. On this applica-
tion, orders for attachment of movable properties of the company were 
issued. The company filed an application before Principal District Judge, 
Raichur for lifting the attachment, and brought to his notice that an 
application under S.34 of the Act was already pending before the City 
Civil Judge, Bangalore. The Principal District Judge held that the 
Bangalore court had no jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the 
application. The revision filed by the company was allowed by the High 
Court. Aggrieved, the contractor filed the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
575 
E 
F 
G 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : The Principal District Judge, Raichur should not have 
B 
c 
entertained the application for execution and ordered attachment of mov-
able properties of the respondents. Though he had jurisdiction in the 
matter, he erred in holding that the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore 
had no jurisdiction. It can always be said, in view of S.20 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, .1908, that only one court will have jurisdiction to try the 
' 
~. 
suit. It is not that the Princip:\l City Civil Court, Bangalore is not a court 
within t':te meaning of S.2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
The question whether the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore has juris-
diction in the matter or not is still pending with him in the proceedings 
under S.34 of the Act which were filed earlier in time than the execution 
application filed by the appellant in District Court at Raichur. The award 
had not attained finality. Besides, the Principal District Judge, Raichur also 
did not take notice of clause 35 of the contract which constituted arbitra-
tion agreement between the parties which specifically provided that only 
the courts in Bangalore would have jurisdiction to entertain any claim for 
D 
enforcement of the award. The High Court took a correct view of the 
matter and rightly set aside the impugned orders. [582-B, 581-B-C, 582-C] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company, (1991] 4 
sec 270, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 2232 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29/30.7.99 of the Karnataka High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 1876 of 1999. 
Rajiv Dutta and Ms. Enakshi Kulshrestha for the Appellant. 
Ms. Indu Malhotra and Ms. Monika Arora for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. We grant leave to appeal. 
This appeal is directed against judgment dated 29/30.7.1999 of the 
High Court of Karnataka given in revision filed by the respondent whereby 
High Court set aside the orders dated 24.5.1999 and 21.6.1999 of the 
Principal District Judge, Raichur. By order dated 24.5.1999 the Principal 
District Judge, Raichur issued warrants of attachment of moveable properties 
of the respondent as described in the applir,ation for execution filed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.