Findings Of Calcutta HC Cannot Be Challenged Before Courts At Patna After Objections Over Jurisdiction Were Dismissed: Patna High Court

Also, the court held that on the question of jurisdiction the Calcutta High Court has already given categorical findings rejecting the objections raised of the petitioner. So, by operation of section 42 of the Act, the Courts at Patna could not exercise jurisdiction.

Brief Facts:

The present dispute arises from a work agreement for the Patna Town Road Project work. The date of completion of the project was 14.08.2008 and the cost of the project was Rs.1,57,74,57,222/-. The agreement was terminated after alleged infracts and violations by the respondent. Subsequently, the registration of the respondent was also cancelled, and the company was blacklisted by an order. Then, the respondent filed several petitions before courts including assailing the order of blacklisting, appointment of an arbitrator, injunction on invocation of bank guarantee of performance security, etc.

Then, the Calcutta High Court appointed an Arbitrator, and an award was passed partially in favour of the respondent. Moving further, the petitioner filed a petition under 34 of the Act before the Court challenging the part of the award while the respondent challenged the award in Calcutta High Court. Then, the respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition filed by the petitioner by filing a petition under section 42 of the Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that various Arbitration applications in connection with the same arbitration agreement were filed on the original side of the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the Calcutta High Court assumed jurisdiction to entertain all subsequent petitions filed in connection with the said agreement. Again, several legal proceedings arose after the award was passed.

Subsequently, the District Judge with his impugned judgment and order gave the petitioner liberty to approach the Calcutta High Court where the proceedings under section 9 of the Act has already been entertained and disposed of. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Patna.

Observation of the court:

The court observed that the Calcutta High Court had already considered the issue of jurisdictional maintainability of the petition. Once the Calcutta High Court has assumed jurisdiction, the relief sought cannot merely be camouflaged by the prayer made by the petitioner invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the Court to quash and set aside the impugned order of the District Judge, Patna. Therefore, the court held that the findings of the Calcutta High Court cannot be challenged in the Courts at Patna.

Thereafter, the court affirmed the findings of the District Judge that the Court of the District Judge, Patna, lacks jurisdiction to review the orders passed by the Calcutta High Court. It is essential that the Courts are conscious of their jurisdictional limits. The petitioner by way of the present petition is in-effect challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court on maintainability, which is impermissible and improper. The definite findings on jurisdiction arrived at by the Calcutta High Court while considering the petitions emanating from the very same work agreement, arbitral proceeding and the award cannot subsequently be challenged before this Court. The order of the Calcutta High Court has become final. Moreover, the findings of the Calcutta High Court have arrived after considering the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, the reasons recorded cannot be reviewed by this Court nor can this Court sit in appeal over the findings of the Calcutta High Court.

Also, the court held that that it is a settled proposition of law that Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum i.e. one cannot do indirectly, what one cannot do directly, in other words what cannot be done directly, is also not permissible to be done by employing oblique means. It would create judicial anarchy if this Court would in effect sit in review/appeal over the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, which has attained finality.

Moreover, the court noted that since the respondent had first approached the Calcutta High Court by preferring an application under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act would be attracted, and subsequent applications would not be maintainable before the Courts at Patna. Also, the court held that on the question of jurisdiction the Calcutta High Court has already given categorical findings rejecting the objections raised of the petitioner. So, by operation of section 42 of the Act, the Courts at Patna could not exercise jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and affirmed the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court.

Case Title: The State of Bihar versus M/s Tantia Construction Ltd.

Case Number: C. Misc. No.43 of 2022

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Amit Prakash, G.A.-13 Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, A.C. to A.G. Mr. Vipin Kumar, A.C. to A.G.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Advocate Mr. Avinash Chandra, Advocate

Date of Judgment: 29.12.2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order