Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J&K vs Ms. Pir Panchal Construction Ltd Joint on 21 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2206
Serial No. 51
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Arb P No. 60/2023
CM No. 3024/2026
CM No. 3026/2026
UT of J&K .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
vs
Ms. Pir Panchal Construction Ltd Joint ..... Respondent(s)
Venture 8DD 2nd Extension Gandhi Nagar
Jammu
Through: Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
21.07.2026
1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, in view of
the mandate of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
the petition filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the Act having
been instituted prior in time to the petition filed by the petitioner before
this Court, the present proceedings are liable to be transferred to the Court
where the first application was filed. It was further submitted that both
petitions assail the same arbitral award dated 24.02.2023. In support of the
said contention, reliance was placed upon CM No. 3026/2026, whereby
the respondents have sought transfer of the present petition to the Court of
the learned Additional District Judge, Bank Cases (Commercial Court),
Jammu.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the respondents’
petition under Section 34 of the Act was instituted on 14.07.2023, whereas
the present petition came to be filed before this Court on 23.11.2023. This
2 Arb P No. 60/2023
CM No. 3024/2026
CM No. 3026/2026 2026:JKLHC-JMU:2206
Court has considered the rival submissions and the material available on
record. In Ramesh Chander Kathuria v. M/s Trikuta Chemicals Pvt.
Ltd., AIR 2015 J&K 52, it has been held that both the High Court,
exercising original civil jurisdiction, and the District Court, being the
Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, fall within the ambit of the
expression “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The said judgment further lays down that where
applications under Section 34 challenging the same arbitral award are filed
before different competent courts on different dates, jurisdiction to
entertain all subsequent proceedings would vest in the court before which
the first application was instituted.
3. The aforesaid principle stands authoritatively affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Associated Contractors,
(2015) 1 SCC 32, wherein it has been held that Section 42 of the Act
confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the court before which the first
application under Part I of the Act is made. Admittedly, the respondents
instituted their petition under Section 34 challenging the arbitral award
dated 24.02.2023 on 14.07.2023 before the Court of the learned
Additional District Judge, Bank Cases (Commercial Court), Jammu,
whereas the present petition came to be filed subsequently on 23.11.2023.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that, by operation of
Section 42 of the Act, the Court of the learned Additional District Judge,
Bank Cases (Commercial Court), Jammu alone possesses the jurisdiction
to entertain and decide the challenges to the arbitral award. Accordingly,
CM No. 3026/2026 deserves to be, and is hereby, allowed. The present
petition is ordered to be transferred to the Court of the learned Additional
3 Arb P No. 60/2023
CM No. 3024/2026
CM No. 3026/2026 2026:JKLHC-JMU:2206
District Judge, Bank Cases (Commercial Court), Jammu, which shall hear
and decide both petitions together in accordance with law.
4. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that during the
pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner deposited an amount
of ₹89,52,943/- (Rupees Eighty-Nine Lakhs Fifty-Two Thousand Nine
Hundred Forty-Three only) before this Court. The Registry is directed to
remit the said amount to the Court of the learned Additional District
Judge, Bank Cases (Commercial Court), Jammu, which shall invest the
same in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank, initially for a period of
six months, subject to renewal from time to time, until the final
adjudication of both petitions or until further orders of the said Court.
5. Accordingly, the present petition, along with all connected applications, if
any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
Jammu
21.07.2026
Rahul Sharma
