Petitioners Directed to Approach Appropriate Court as Dispute Relates to Property Outside Court's Jurisdiction
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an arbitration petition filed by Kanchan Konwer and another petitioner against Tushar Kanti Jana on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petition, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenged an arbitral award related to a Development Agreement concerning immovable property.
Justice Gaurang Kanth, presiding over the case, addressed the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the petition. The respondent argued that the dispute pertains to a property located at Keyatala Lane, District South 24-Parganas, which falls under the jurisdiction of courts at Alipore. The court accepted this objection, emphasizing that disputes involving immovable property should be adjudicated by courts within whose territorial limits the property is situated.
The case originated from a Development Agreement dated August 3, 2018, between Late Shri Tapan Konwer and the respondent, where the respondent was to develop the land on a 70:30 sharing basis. However, the project did not progress due to pending title suits and disputes over property ownership. Following the demise of Late Shri Tapan Konwer, his legal heirs, the petitioners, contested the arbitral award that directed them to pay substantial sums to the respondent.
The petitioners argued that the arbitral award was flawed due to non-consideration of material evidence and alleged that no payment was received by Late Shri Tapan Konwer. They also contended that the agreement was incapable of performance due to unresolved disputes and that the awarded damages were arbitrary.
Despite these contentions, the High Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case due to lack of jurisdiction. It was clarified that while the petition met the pecuniary jurisdiction criteria, territorial jurisdiction is a prerequisite for the court to entertain such matters. Consequently, the petitioners were advised to approach the appropriate court at Alipore.
The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to jurisdictional mandates in legal proceedings, particularly in arbitration cases involving immovable properties. The petitioners retain the liberty to pursue their challenge to the arbitral award in a court with proper jurisdiction.
Bottom line:-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Territorial jurisdiction of courts under Section 34 - Petition dismissed as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction; petitioner granted liberty to approach the appropriate court.
Statutory provision(s):
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34
Kanchan Konwer v. Tushar Kanti Jana, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2926447
