MADHO S/O SHRIHARI DESHPANDE versus MADHAO S/O TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 22-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADHO S/o SHRIHARI DESHPANDE 
A 
v. 
MADHAO S/o TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE 
APRIL 22, 1988 
, 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND 
B 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.) 
--::/ 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Section 2(c)-Award-Filing of-Juris-
diction of Court-Court where subject matter of dispute situated has 
\ 
jurisdiction . 
• 
c 
I 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Sections 17 and 20-Award of 
Arbitrator-Filing of in Court-Proper Court is Court where subject 
matter of dispute situate. 
An Award of an Arbitrator in respect of properties situated D 
mostly at Warora, Chandrapur and only a bit of property situated at 
Nagpur, did not mention the place of execution. The arbitrator was 
resident of Nagpur. The award was filed in the Civil Court at Nagpur. 
The Civil Judge held that only a bit of property situated at Nagpur and 
the residence of arbitrator at Nagpur did not give local jurisdiction to 
the Court at Nagpur and dismissed the application saying that the 
E 
award ought to have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Chandra-
pur. The revision application was summarily rejected by the Bomba) 
High Court. The appeal by special leave is against the judgment of th~ 
~ 
Bombay High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
F 
HELD: 1. The Court at Nagpur had undoubtedly part of the 
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as part of the dispute which was the 
subject-matter of the dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur 
Court. This view is further corroborated by Section 2(c) of the Arbitra-
lion Act, 1940. [687F) 
G 
1 
1.2 In view of the provisions of SectiollS 17 and 20 of the Code of 
Civil procedure, the order of the Civil Jndge that the award be retnrned 
for presentation to the proper Court is erroneous. The High Court was 
also in error in not entertaining the application and in not setting aside 
the order of the Civil Judge. [687F, G-H) 
H 
685 
A 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) 3 S.C.R. 
[The Court set aside the orders of both the Civil Judge and the 
High Court and directed the Civil Judge to proceed with the objection 
to the award filed io bis Court at Nagpur and dispose It of as quickly as 
possible.) [688A·Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
B 
1538 of 1988. 
c 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.86 of the High Court of 
Bombay in Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in C.R.A. No. 100/86. 
Y.S. Dharmadhikari, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande 
for the Petitioners. 
S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B.K. Saluja for the Respon· 
dents. (Not Present). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. In this case notice had been 
issued indicating that the matter would be disposed of at the notice 
stage. The respondents have not appeared. 
Special leave granted and the appeal is disposed as hereunder. 
·--ic 
The only question involved in this appeal is whether the High 
Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, was right in rejecting the revision 
application summarily when the learned Civil Judge had held that the 
award was wrongly presented in his Court and he had no jurisdiction to 
go into the question of validity of the award. The facts are that there 
~ 
F 
was a reference to an arbitrator. The award was filed in the Civil Court 
at Nagpur and objection was filed against the said award. The short 
question upon which the learned District Judge dismissed the applica· 
ti on was that Nagpur was not the Court which had jurisdiction to 
entertain application. He held in his order, interalia, as follows: 
G 
H 
"Most of the parties to the agreement of reference are the 
residents of Warora in the District of Chandrapur. On the 
careful scrutiny of agreement of reference, the place of 
execution of the said agreement seems to have been omit- · 
ted. I am quite unable to understand as to how the glaring 
mistake in respect of omission of place of execution of the 
agreement has been committed. It seems that the place of 
' "!-· 
- -f ,, 
~ 
' 
MADHAO v. MADHAV IMUKHARJI, J.I 
687 
execution of the agreement is deliberately omitted with 
A 
intend to file the award in the Civil Court at Nagpur as the 
arbitrator is the resident of Nagpur. For his convenience to 
file the award in the Civil Court at Nagpur, the place of 
execution of the agreement seems to have been omitted. 
Moreover, it appears that the agreement for reference 
appears to have been prepared and drafted at Nagpur as 
stamp paper was purchased :it Nagpur. It does not mean 
that the parties executed agreement for reference at 
Nagpur 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.