Holding

The Nagpur Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the objection because part of the dispute’s subject‑matter was situated there, as per Arbitration Act 1940 s.2(c) and CPC s.17,20.

Summary

The dispute involved an arbitration award concerning properties mainly located in Warora, Chandrapur, with a small portion in Nagpur. The arbitrator, a resident of Nagpur, filed the award in the Nagpur Civil Court. The Civil Judge held that only the Nagpur property and the arbitrator's residence did not confer jurisdiction, directing the award be returned to the Chandrapur court. The High Court summarily rejected the revision of that order. On special leave, the Supreme Court held that because part of the subject‑matter of the dispute was situated in Nagpur, the Nagpur court had jurisdiction under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Sections 17 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court set aside the orders of both the Civil Judge and the High Court, allowed the appeal, and directed the Nagpur Civil Judge to proceed with the objection to the award.

Issues considered

Whether the Civil Court at Nagpur had jurisdiction to entertain the objection to the arbitration award when part of the subject‑matter of the dispute was situated in Nagpur.
Interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 regarding the court having jurisdiction where the subject‑matter of the dispute is situated.
Application of Sections 17 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to determine the proper court for filing an arbitration award.

Legislation cited

Arbitration Act, 1940s. 2(c)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 17, s. 20

Subjects

arbitrationjurisdictionaward filingCivil Procedure CodeArbitration Actsubject‑matter jurisdictionproperty disputeSupreme Courtspecial leave

Judgment

MADHO S/o SHRIHARI DESHPANDE A
v.
MADHAO S/o TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE

, APRIL 22, 1988

[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.)
B

--::/ Arbitration Act, 1940: Section 2(c)-Award-Filing of-Juris-
diction of Court-Court where subject matter of dispute situated has
\ jurisdiction .
• I

Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Sections 17 and 20-Award of
c
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
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

[The Court set aside the orders of both the Civil Judge and the
A
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.

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.
c
S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B.K. Saluja for the Respon·
dents. (Not Present).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
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
E
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·
tion was that Nagpur was not the Court which had jurisdiction to
entertain application. He held in his order, interalia, as follows:

G "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
H agreement has been committed. It seems that the place of
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
B
"!-·' 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
- -f,, 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

~ c
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 jurisdic-
' tion of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur."

The learned Civil Judge held that the award passed by the D
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 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 E
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 F
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 G
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. H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 3 S.C.R. ~

A 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.

B G.N. Appeal allowed.

l.

'
l,,

-1;