Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v/s Anoop Kumar Modi; 2023:AHC-LKO:68875 AFR
In this recent judgment the main issue before the Allahabad High Court was: –
Whether the execution petition filed by the respondent at the Commercial Court in Lucknow was maintainable or not.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (the Petitioner) argued that the Commercial Court in Lucknow lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings, and that the execution petition could only be filed at the place where the award was delivered. The petitioner also argued that the retail outlet of the Respondent was situated at Bahraich, and thus, no execution petition could have been filed at Lucknow.

However, the Hon’ble Court rejected the Petitioner’s arguments on the following grounds: –
• The Hon’ble Court relied on the principle that the award holder has the choice to file an execution petition at the place of his choice. This principle was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Cheran Properties Limited v/s Kasturi and Sons Limited, wherein it was held the enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. And thus, the execution petition filed at the Commercial Court in Lucknow was maintainable.
• The Hon’ble Court relied on the principle that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, provides for the establishment of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions of High Courts for the adjudication of commercial disputes. The court held that the Commercial Court in Lucknow had the jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings, as the execution petition arose out of an arbitration agreement, and thus, fell within the ambit of Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act.
The Hon’ble Court relied on the principle that the territorial jurisdiction of a court is determined by the place where the cause of action arises. The court held that the cause of action in this case arose at Lucknow, as the award was delivered at Lucknow, and thus, the Commercial Court in Lucknow had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings.

Author of this article:
Adv. Ravish Bhatt,
Partner, R&D Law Chambers,
Dual Qualified Lawyer Solicitor | International Tax Affiliate

Connect with Mr. Bhatt on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adit-ravishbhatt/

  • Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information written above without first seeking legal advice from qualified law practitioner.
SideMenu