The revision petitioner/petitioner has filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 10.7.2006 in A.O.P.No.6 of 2005 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in dismissing the application filed by him under Section 11 r/w Section 2(1)(e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
2. The learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, while passing orders in A.O.P.No.6 of 2005 dated 10.7.2006 has inter alia opined that' as per Ex R1 Clause 3 of the agreement dated 5.3.1998 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents since the claim amount is more than Rs.50,001/-, the matter has to be referred 'to Court' and therefore it has no jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator and resultantly dismissed the application without costs.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the subject matter of the Arbitration is to be determined by a Civil Court and in fact the interpretation of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in respect of Clause 3 of the Contract will lead to anomaly whereby a single contract can provide for both Arbitration and Civil Courts for resolving a dispute and the other reasoning given by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal to the effect that he has no power to appoint an Arbitrator is not correct and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.
4. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal has rightly dismissed A.O.P.No.6 of 2005 holding that that Court has no power to appoint an Arbitrator in the matter in issue by placing reliance of Clause 3 of Ex R1 agreement dated 5.3.1998 entered into between the parties and since the same is in accordance with law and the same need not be interfered with by this Court and consequently praying for dismissal of the civil revision petition.
5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the same.
6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the petitioner's averment in A.O.P.No.6 of 2005 filed before the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, wherein the revision petitioner has sought the relief of appointing an Arbitrator to decide the disputes and damages in terms of the agreement dated 5.3.1998 in Agreement No.70/97-98 as per the direction of this Court for the determination of the controvercies.
7. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent adopted by the other respondents, it is among other things mentioned that the claims of the revision petitioner are denied not only but a specific plea has been taken that Mr.Prakasam,the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm who is a necessary party has not been added and therefore, the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party etc and has also further made a claim that because of the petitioner's adamant attitude, the respondents have suffered a huge loss of Rs.12,00,600/- and in fact the contractor has to pay a sum of Rs.2,300/- to the respondents per day as damages for non completion of work and consequently prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. As per
Section 2(1)(e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, a competent Court is one which can entertain a suit between the parties in which the controvercies have been made as are the subject matter of Arbitration. In short, Court in
Section 9 of the Act has to be the Court which is defined in
Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
9. In the instant case on hand, since Ex R1 agreement dated 5.3.1998, Clause 3 speaks of referring the dispute to the Court and if the claim is more than Rs.50,001/- then in that event, the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal has no jurisdiction and the petitioner can only seek relief as per
Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 before the High Court and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in A.O.P.No.6 of 2005 dated 10.7.2006 does not suffer from any serious material irregularity or patent illegality and the same is a just and valid order and resultantly the civil revision fails.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the revision petition will not preclude the revision petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the competent forum in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs.
19-12-2009 Index:Yes Internet:Yes sg To the Principal District Judge, Namakkal M.VENUGOPAL,J sg Pre-delivery order in CRP.NPD.NO.517 /2007
-12-2009 PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN C.R.P(NPD) No.517 of 2007 To The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL Most respectfully submitted P.A.