M/S RAVI RANJAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD versus ADITYA KUMAR CHATTERJEE

M/S RAVI RANJAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD versus ADITYA KUMAR CHATTERJEE

Calcutta High Court inherently lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Section 11(6) petition because the Development Agreement was executed and registered in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, the subject matter related to immovable property situated in Muzaffarpur and no part of the cause of action arose within Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction; the phrase 'sittings of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be at Kolkata' denotes venue/sittings and does not, by itself, designate Kolkata as the seat/place of arbitration; Section 11(6) must be read with Section 2(1)(e) so that a Section 11(6) petition lies only in a High Court which exercises supervisory/superintendence over courts having jurisdiction as...

Parties
Appellant: M/s Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd; Respondent: Aditya Kumar Chatterjee
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Hearing of Appeal Against Calcutta High Court Order Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Appointing an Arbitrator and Against Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Seat of Arbitration, Venue of Arbitration, Territorial Jurisdiction, Section 11(6) A&c Act, Section 2(1)(e) A&c Act, Section 42 A&c Act, Section 9 A&c Act, Appointment of Arbitrator, Review of Court Order
Arbitration Civil Jurisdiction Property Law Seat of Arbitration Venue of Arbitration Territorial Jurisdiction Section 11(6) A&c Act Section 2(1)(e) A&c Act +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd

Appellant

Aditya Kumar Chatterjee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Hearing of Appeal Against Calcutta High Court Order Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Appointing an Arbitrator and Against Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Section 11(6) petition for appointment of an arbitrator
  2. 2 Whether reference to sittings/venue at Kolkata in the arbitration clause amounted to designation of Kolkata as the seat/place of arbitration conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Calcutta High Court
  3. 3 Whether Section 42 of the A&C Act precluded filing the Section 11(6) petition in Calcutta High Court when an earlier Section 9 application was filed in the District Court at Muzaffarpur

Ratio Decidendi

Calcutta High Court inherently lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Section 11(6) petition because the Development Agreement was executed and registered in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, the subject matter related to immovable property situated in Muzaffarpur and no part of the cause of action arose within Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction; the phrase 'sittings of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be at Kolkata' denotes venue/sittings and does not, by itself, designate Kolkata as the seat/place of arbitration; Section 11(6) must be read with Section 2(1)(e) so that a Section 11(6) petition lies only in a High Court which exercises supervisory/superintendence over courts having jurisdiction as...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned orders of the Calcutta High Court dated 13.08.2021 (appointment of arbitrator) and 04.10.2021 (dismissal of review) set aside
  • Appointment of the arbitrator appointed by the Calcutta High Court set aside as being without jurisdiction