http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MADHO S/o SHRIHARI DESHPANDE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MADHAO S/o TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1347            1988 SCR  (3) 685  1988 SCC  (3) 511        JT 1988 (2)   222  1988 SCALE  (1)905

ACT:      Arbitration Act,  1940: Section  2(c)-Award-Filing  of- Jurisdiction of  Court-Court where subject matter of dispute situated has jurisdiction.      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.

HEADNOTE:      An Award  of an  Arbitrator in  respect  of  properties situated 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  award ought to have been filed in the  Court  of  Civil  Judge,  Chandrapur.  The  revision application was summarily rejected by the Bombay High Court. The appeal  by special  leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.      Allowing the appeal, this Court, ^      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 Arbitration Act, 1940. [687F]      1.2 In  view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 20 of the Code  of Civil  procedure, the  order of the Civil Judge that the  award be  returned 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] 686      [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 in his Court at Nagpur and dispose it of as quickly as possible.] [688A-B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1538 of 1988.      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 Respondents. (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.      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 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 application was that Nagpur was not  the   Court  which   had  jurisdiction   to   entertain application. He held in his order, inter alia, as follows:           "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 omitted. 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 687           execution of the agreement is deliberately omitted           with 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 at           Nagpur. It does not mean that the parties executed           agreement for  reference at  Nagpur as the most of           the parties  are the  residents of Warora and most           of the  property except  the house on plot No. 94,           at Shiwaji Nagar, Nagpur, is situated at Warora in           Chandrapur District.  An adverse  inference can be           drawn that the agreement of reference was executed           at  Warora  in  Chandrapur  District  which  comes           within the  local jurisdiction of the Civil Judge,           Senior Division, Chandrapur."      The learned  Civil Judge  held that the award passed by the arbitrator  ought to  have been  filed in  the court  of Civil Judge,  Senior Division, Chandrapur. The learned Civil Judge held  that only  a bit  of property situated at Nagpur and the residence of arbitrator at Nagpur did not give local

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

jurisdiction  to   the  Court   at  Nagpur.  He  accordingly dismissed the  application with  the  order  that  award  be returned for  presentation to  the proper Court having legal jurisdiction. We  are of  the opinion that the learned Civil Judge was  in error in view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in holding as he did.      In view  of the facts mentioned undoubtedly part of the dispute which  was the  subject matter of dispute was within the jurisdiction  of the  Nagpur Court. This view is further corroborated by  the Section  2(c) of  the Arbitration  Act, 1940. The  Court at  Nagpur  had  undoubtedly  part  of  the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.      The High  Court had  summarily  rejected  the  revision application against  the said  order of  the  learned  Civil Judge. The  High Court, in our opinion, also was in error in not entertaining  the application  and in  not setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge. In the premises and in the facts  of this,  we are  of the  opinion, that  the High Court and  the learned  Civil Judge  were  in  error.  Their orders are therefore set aside. 688      The appeal  is allowed.  Let the  learned  Civil  Judge proceed with  the objection  to the award filed in his Court at Nagpur.  The said objection may be disposed of as quickly as possible. There will be no order as to costs. G.N.                                    Appeal allowed. 689