After Petitioner Abandons Claim, He Cannot Agitate Same Before HC: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court recently observed that petitioner after having abandoned his claim before a competent Court having jurisdiction could not file a fresh application on the same cause of action before the High Court.

Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya heard an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 praying for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the asset which was financed by way of a loan given by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner also sought a restraint on the respondents from transferring or disposing of the said asset.

The respondents took a point of maintainability of the application on 3 grounds. The first of the grounds was that the application was barred under section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The second objection was that the application was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which pertained to withdrawal of suits. The third objection was that the application had not been filed before the jurisdictional Court in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

The pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and the Calcutta High Court was notified in exercise of the power conferred under section 3(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. By the said notification, the pecuniary jurisdictions of the Courts was specified in terms of the value of the commercial dispute and provided that the City Civil Court and the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court would have concurrent jurisdiction over commercial disputes between Rs. 10 lakhs – Rs. 1 crore. Admittedly, the petitioner’s claim was approximately Rs. 67.53 lacs. Therefore, both the City Civil Court as well as the Commercial Division of this Court would have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the instant application. The petitioner would hence have had the choice of approaching either of the two Courts.

The Court said that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was replete with pecuniary platforms for the purpose of determining the court which would have the authority to receive, try and entertain a commercial dispute including that of an arbitration of a specified value.

The Court said that the choice of a litigant to approach a Court which had been conferred pecuniary jurisdiction to hear an application filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could not be limited or extinguished by reading Calcutta High Court as the only Court under section 2(1)(e)(i) of the 1996 Act. The litigant must be free to approach any Court provided the Court had been designated as the proper Court in terms of pecuniary limits under the notification of 2020.

The Court dismissed the application.