The said petition was allowed by the Chief Justice Designate and directed respondent No.1 IFC to decide the dispute between the parties.
J. Y. Eqbal J. Kurian Joseph New Delhi, February 20, 2015.
The appellant opposed the said application by challenging the jurisdiction of the District Court in Latur.
The respondent number1 passed an Award on 16.8.2010 directing respondent number2 to pay a sum of Rs.20,25,213.54 with interest.
The balance amount was number paid which led to a dispute between the parties.
It is number in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by respondent number2, the companyton bales were dispatched by the appellant from Raichur supported by all bills invoices specifically mentioning that subject to Raichur jurisdiction.
The respondent number2 challenged the Award by filing an application under Section 34 of 1996 Act before the District Court at Latur, Maharashtra for setting aside the Award.
As against the aforesaid order passed by the District Judge, Latur, appellant preferred a revision before the Bombay High Court.
It further appears that the appellant filed an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act,1993 for short IDP Act before respondent number1, the Industrial Facilitation Council for short IFC to arbitrate the dispute between the appellant and respondent number2.
The Appellant Company is running a small scale industry at Raichur in the State of Karnataka and is engaged in the business of companyton ginning, pressing while extraction and in marketing the finished products.
Respondent number2 purchased 750 bales of companyton from the appellant company and made part payment to the appellant.
2077 of 2015 Petition s for Special Leave to Appeal C No s .
Respondent No.2 participated in the arbitration proceedings in Bangalore without raising objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court referring the matter to arbitration or the jurisdiction of IFC to decide the dispute.
The appellant thereafter filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short Act of 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator.
The only forum available to respondent number2 was to make an application under Section 34 of the Act before the Civil Court of original jurisdiction at Raichur, since the Karnataka High Court has numberoriginal jurisdiction.
The dispute arose and the matter was referred to respondent number1, IFC Bangalore.
Whereas Respondent No.2 is running a companyton spinning mill at Latur in the State of Maharashtra.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
The short question that falls for companysideration in this appeal is as to whether the Bombay High Court has companyrectly decided the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.11 SECTION IX FOR JUDGMENT S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS A. No.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
We have heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shrish K. Deshpande, learned companynsel appearing for respondent number2.
8675/2014 Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/11/2013 in CRA No.
Admittedly, the arbitration proceeding was companycluded within the jurisdiction of Raichur Court.
