LexPETINE SHIPPING INC. OF MONROVIA versus THE MINERALS AND METAL TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 551 PETINE SHIPPING INC. OF MONROVIA A v. THE MINERALS AND METAL TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 2627 of 2009) APRIL 17, 2009 B [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] # Arbitration Act, 1940- s. 31(4) -Applicability of- Petition before Delhi High Court for declaration that nomination of c arbitrator was valid - Dismissed as infructuous on account of death of arbitrator - Later, on the question of appointment of Umpire, petition before Bombay High Court - Dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction holding ,that since previous application filed before Delhi High Court, that court alone had D the jurisdiction - On appeal, held : Rejection of petition on account of lack of jurisdiction not correct - s. 31(4) is applicable to "application in a reference" - Application made before Delhi High Court cannot be said to be a reference made u/s. 31(4) - The court did not retain any control over E the proceedings and also gave no directions nor appointed any arbitrator - Cause of action also arose before Bombay High Court - Jurisdiction. - Appellant and respondent entered into a Charter F Party Contract. On dispute, as per arbitration clause, both . the parties nominated arbitrators of their choice. Appellant objected to the nomination of arbitrator, as done by the respondent. Respondent field a petition before Delhi High Court for declaration that the nomination of arbitrator was valid. The petition was G Jo dismissed as infructuous on account of the death of nominated arbitrator. Later, regarding dispute on the question of appointment of umpire, petition was filed ' ' before Bombay High Court. High Court dismissed the -- 551 H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S. C.R. A petition holding that in view of s. 31(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, since the arbitration proceedings had already been initiated with Delhi High Court, future proceedings were to be decided by the same court, and thus, Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the same. Hence the B present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The main object of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act is to invest a single court with the C exclusive jurisdiction to decide all questions relating to the matter of arbitration; this object is achieved by the combined operation of all its sub-sections. The words "application in a reference" used in sub-section (4) should therefore, be related back to sub-sections (2) and D (3) and all applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or arising out of such proceedings or in which the court has to decide questions regarding the validity, effect, or existence of an award or an arbitration agreement between the parties to E the agreement, should be treated as 'application in a reference". [Para 12) [556-G, H; 557 -A] 2. Although an application was filed before the Delhi High Court, but it did not retain any control over the said proceedings of the arbitrator. Delhi High Court neither F gave any directions nor did it appoint an Arbitrator in the adjudication of the said application. Also respondent did not file any application regarding appointment of another arbitrator in Delhi High Court. Thus, the application filed before Delhi High Court cannot be said to be a reference G made under Section 31(4) of the Act. [Paras 15 and 17) [558-E; 558-C; 558-F] H Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Annapurna Construction, 2008 (6) sec 732, relied on. • < PETINE SHIPPING INC. OF MONROVIA v. MINERALS AND 553 METAL TRADING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD . • State of M.P. v. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. 1972 (1) SCC A 702, distinguished. 3. Under the agreement, in the instant case, respondent has chosen Mumbai as the port of delivery and the vessel carrying the Rock Phosphate was B -· delivered at the port of Bombay. Therefore it cannot be denied that Bombay High Court had the jurisdiction in the I arbitration petition filed before it, as the goods were delivered at the Port of Bombay. Therefore, the High Court of Bombay is not correct in rejecting the arbitration c petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. [Paras 18, 19] [558-G, HJ Case Law Reference: 1s12 (1) sec 102 distinguished Para 14 D 2008 (6) sec 132 relied on Para 16 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2627 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 07.01.2008 of the High E Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 132 of 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.