# U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd v. M/S K.S.M. Bashir Mohammad & Sons & another - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 43 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-01-08 - **Bench:** Anil Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-cooperative-federation-ltd-v-m-s-k-s-m-bashir-mohammad-sons-another-42524 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Arbitration and Reconciliation Act 1996execution of interim award given by the arbitrator-execution-proceeding initiated before Civil Judge (Senior Division)- order passed therein challenged on the ground of jurisdiction-according to definition of Section 2(1) (c) Court means the "Principle Civil Court" of Original Jurisdiction i.e. District Judgehence order passed by Civil Judge-heldwithout jurisdiction-set-a-side. Held: Para-12 In view of the facts stated above as well as the law as laid down by this Court in the case of I.T.I. Ltd, Allahabad ( Supra) , opposite party no.2 has got no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution proceedings in the matter in question hence the order dated 22.5.2001 is without jurisdiction , liable to be set aside. Case Law discussed: AIR 1998 Allahabad 313; 2005 (1) RAJ 209 ## Text 1 All] U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd V. M/S K.S.M. Bashir Mohammad & Sons & another 43 29. No order as to cost. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J. MISC. SINGLE No. - 1673 of 2001 U.P.Cooperative Federation Limited ...Petitioner Versus M/S K.S.M. Bashir Mohammad & Sons & Another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.K. Khare Sri S.K.Pandey Sri Shrish Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Sri N.K. Seth Arbitration and Reconciliation Act 1996execution of interim award given by the arbitrator-execution-proceeding initiated before Civil Judge (Senior Division)- order passed therein challenged on the ground of jurisdiction-according to definition of Section 2(1) (c) Court means the "Principle Civil Court" of Original Jurisdiction i.e. District Judgehence order passed by Civil Judge-heldwithout jurisdiction-set-a-side. Held: Para-12 In view of the facts stated above as well as the law as laid down by this Court in the case of I.T.I. Ltd, Allahabad ( Supra) , opposite party no.2 has got no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution proceedings in the matter in question hence the order dated 22.5.2001 is without jurisdiction , liable to be set aside. Case Law discussed: AIR 1998 Allahabad 313; 2005 (1) RAJ 209 (Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri P.K. Khare and Sri Shirish Kumar ,learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nirmal Seth , learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sachin Garg Advocate for opposite party no.1 as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that for construction of commercial Complex at 6 , Cooper Road , Lucknow, petitioner/ M/S U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited entered into an agreement on 20.12.1995 with M/S K.S.M. Bashir Mohammad & Sons ( hereinafter referred to as 'Contractor') . 3. Thereafter some dispute and deferences have arisen between the parties arising out of the agreement so for adjudication of the same referred to the Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Saksena( former judge of this Court) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996( hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and the sole Arbitrator on 24.10.2000 has given an interim award in favour of the Contractor, challenged by way of appeal ( F.A.F.O. No.530 of 2000) by the petitioner , dismissed by judgment and order dated 30.11.2000 again challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5215 of 2001 etc. dismissed by order dated 10.5.2001.The said order on reproduction reads as under:- "SLP(C) No.5215/2001 This Matter will be heard only on the merits of the interim award. So far challenge to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is concerned, we decline to exercise our 44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 powers. List this matter for final hearing after four months on a non miscellaneous day. Parties may exchange any additional documents , if they are so advised. SLPNO....CC 3015/2001 The Special Leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merit." 4. In view of the said facts, contractor / respondent no.1 filed Execution case under Section 36 of the Act before opposite party no.2/ Civil Judge(Senior Division) Lucknow in which notice have been issued to petitioner who put his appearance and file objection regarding maintainability of the execution proceedings. 5. The Executing Court / Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Lucknow passed an impugned order dated 22.5.2001 in Execution Case no. 3 of 2001 challenged by way of present writ petition filed before this Court . 6. Sri P.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that opposite party no.2 has got no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution as he is not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in view of the provisions under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act which reads as under:- "2 (1) (e) "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes." 7. Accordingly, Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner with the add of definition as given in Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act submits that the "District Judge" is the "Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" in a district thus the opposite party no.2 has no authority to entertain the execution proceedings so the order dated 22.5.2001 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.2 is non est and without jurisdiction liable to be set aside. In support of his contention , Sri Khare has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court given in the case of M/s I.T.I. Ltd. Allahabad Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and others, AIR 1998 Allahabad 313. 8. Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sachin Garg Advocate for opposite party no.1, in rebuttal , submits that as per the admitted facts on record principal amount has already been paid to the Contractor on the basis of interim award given by the Arbitrator However, the interest has not paid to opposite party no.1 by the petitioner for which he is otherwise entitle to get in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court but on one or other pretext petitioner is lingering the matter without any jestification or reason. However, he fairly admits the legal position that the Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Lucknow has got no jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings. 1 All] U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd V. M/S K.S.M. Bashir Mohammad & Sons & another 45 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. A plain reading of the clause (e) of Section 2(1), the 'Court' means the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a District, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court or any Court of small causes. Thus, the expression 'Court' , therefore means-- (a) Principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction in a District; (b) High Court in exercise of its ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction; (c) Such Courts must have jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. (d) Any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, is not included in the definition of "Court"; (e) Any Court of Small Causes is also not included in the definition of "Court".(See: National Aluminum Co. Ltd. Vs. Pressteel and Fabrications (2004) 1 SCC 540: 2004(1) RAJ 1: 2003 (10) Scale 1062:2003(8) Supreme 876:2004(1) SLT 336: 2004 (3) SRJ 471: 2004 (1) Arb LR 67) 11. In the case of M/s Nilachkra Constructions Vs. State of Orissa and another, 2005 (1) RAJ 209, after referring to Section 2(1) (e) of the Act which defines the 'court' and Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Orissa High Court held that a plain reading of both the definitions makes it manifest that the Principle Court of Original jurisdiction means the district court in as much as District Judge is the presiding officer of that Court. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid Sections, it is obvious that the court of "District Judge" is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district. The definition , as given under Section 2(1) (e) of the Act expressly excludes any other Civil Court or any Court of small Causes.(see: Patel Roadways Limited Vs. Prasad Trading Company, (1991) 4 SCC 270 and Khalil Ahmad Dakhani V. Hatti Gold Mines Company Ltd.,(2000) 3 SCC 755) 12. In view of the facts stated above as well as the law as laid down by this Court in the case of I.T.I. Ltd, Allahabad ( Supra) , opposite party no.2 has got no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution proceedings in the matter in question hence the order dated 22.5.2001 is without jurisdiction , liable to be set aside. 13. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.5.2001 passed by opposite party no.2/ Civil Judge ( Senior Division) , Lucknow is set aside. --------- 46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Revision No. - 2211 of 2012 Nihal ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. Arun Srivastva Sri Rajiv.Lochan.Shukla Sri Shrawan Kumar Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Juvenile Justice Act, Section 52 readwith section 401(2) Cr.P.C.-Right of complainant/informant to be heard in revision-offence u/s 302 Cr.P.C.- argument that informant is not a personsaid to be adversely affected-held-in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Babloo Pasi case-complainant of F.I.R. Definitely an aggrieved personopportunity of hearing is must-necessary direction issued. Held: Para 10 On the basis of the above discussions I am of the view that in such type of cases the complainant of the FIR is definitely an aggrieved person and must be given an opportunity of hearing before passing an order in such type of revisions. Caselaw discussed: 2009 (64) ACC 754; 2009 (65) ACC 629 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J.) 1. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist Nihal and the learned AGA. The short question, at this stage, which is to be answered in the revision is whether the complainant-informant of the FIR should be heard in this revision or not. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.6.2011 an FIR was lodged with the police of P.S.Kotwali Pilibhit regarding an incident of murder which took place on the same day at about 6.30 p.m. The revisionist was named as an accused in the case. At a subsequent stage the revisionist took the plea that he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident which was considered and his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for determination of his age. He was declared a juvenile. Thereafter a bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act (for short the Act) was moved before the Board. After calling for a report from the District Probation Officer and after hearing both the parties the Board was of the view that it was not in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law to release him on bail and give him to the custody of his mother and therefore the application of the revisionist under section 12 of the Act was rejected. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order an appeal under section 52 of the Act was preferred before the Court of learned Sessions Judge which was ultimately disposed of by the learned additional Sessions Judge and the appeal was dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the dismissal and earlier order of rejection the present revision has been filed. As mentioned above the sole question involved here is whether the informant/complainant of the case under section 302 IPC namely Ramesh should be heard by this Court before disposing of this revision or not. 5. Mr.R.L.Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the