LexM/S. MILKFOOD PVT. LTD. versus M/S. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 801 JI. M/S. MILKFOOD PVT. LTD. A v. M/S. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD. (Civil Appeal No.6316 of 2011) AUGUST 4, 2011 B ..I, 1 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] ARBITRATION ACT, 1940: -:; s.31 (4) - Territorial jurisdiction - Arbitration clause c stipulating that venue of arbitr~tion would be Delhi and the '• contract subject to Delhi jurisdiction - Suit filed in Gaya - In ~ revision before Patna High Court against order on appellants' -.. application uls 34 for stay of suit, arbitral tribunal appointed which gave its award - Application u/s 14(2) filed in Gaya court D " to make the award the rule of the court - Patna High Court upholding the order of the Gaya court that it had jurisdiction - HELD: Application u/s 33 filed by appellant in Delhi High Court praying for a clarification as to whether arbitration proceedings would be governed by the 1940 Act or the 1996 E Act will have to be treated as the first application in terms under the 1940 Act in the reference and all subsequent applications will have to be made in Delhi High Court, which " alone will have jurisdiction in the matter and not th~ Gaya I court - Order appointing arbitrators by Patna High Court was not in an application under the Act, but in a revision u/s 115 F CPC arising out of an order in an application uls 34 to stay the proceedings in a civil suit - Therefore, it cannot be said that the first application in a reference was made before Patna High Coult - Orders of Patna High Court and of Sub-Judge, G Gaya, set aside - Respondent shall obtain return of ... application uls 14(2) from Gaya court and file it before Delhi " High Court. Under an agreement, the respondent was to 801 H ..... "--.. 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20111 9 S.C.R. A manufacture and pack appellant's product (ice cream). The agreement contained an arbitration clause stipulating that the venue of arbitration would be Delhi and the contract was subject to Delhi jurisdiction. The respondent filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Ga ya (Bihar) for B injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with . the manufacture and supply of ice cream by it. The appellant's application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) filed on 19.6.1995 for stay of the proceedings in the suit stating that the contract between the parties c provided for arbitration was allowed. The revision filed by the respondent was disposed of by the High Court by its order dated 6.5.1997, as the parties had appointed their arbitrators and the matter stood referred to the arbitral tribunal, which gave the award on 17.8.2004. The 0 respondent filed a suit u/s 14 (2) of the Act in the Court of Sub.Judge, Gaya on 28.8.2004 praying that the award be made a rule of the Court. The appellant contended that only the Delhi High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application and not the court at Gaya. The E appellant also challenged the award by filing a petition u/ss 30 and 33 of the Act on 16.10.2004 before the Delhi High Court, which held that it was for the Gaya court to decide the issue of jurisdiction. The Court of Sub.Judge, Gaya held that it had jurisdiction to decide the application u/s 14 (2) of the Act. The said order was upheld by the F Patna High Court. In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether the proceedings u/s 14 (2) of the Act could have been initiated only in the Delhi High G Court and not before the Court of Sub-Judge, Gaya, having regard to s. 31 (4) of the Act. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1Sub-s. (4) of s. 31 of the Arbitration Act, H 1940 provides that where any application under the Act, JI ) • • I - • . • Ii _.._ , " ... MILKFOOD PVT. LTD. v. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD. 803 in any reference, had been made in a court competent to entertain it, then notwithstanding anything contained in the Act (or in any other law for the time being in force), that court alon~ shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and therefore all arbitration proceedings shall be made in that court alone and not in any other court. [para 9) [809-B-C] 1.2 The application u/s 34 of the Act filed by the appellant on 19.6.1995 cannot be considered to be the first application to a court in the reference to arbitration . [para 11) [810-E-F] Kumbha Mawji vs. Union of India
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.