The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Principal District Judge, Betul, had no jurisdiction to decide an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because a designated Commercial Court had already been notified for disputes from Betul. The order was therefore a nullity. Setting it aside, the Court returned the Section 34 application and left the parties free to pursue remedies available under law.
Justice Vivek Agarwal passed the order in an arbitration appeal filed by Deepak Sainani against Angel Broking Ltd.
Background
The appellant challenged an order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Betul, in Case No. 04/2024. That order decided an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act directed against an arbitral award dated 11.12.2020. The appellant contended that the application had been entertained without jurisdiction.
Arguments On Commercial Court Jurisdiction
Senior Advocate Sanjay K. Agrawal, along with Advocate Arjun Bajpai, appeared for the appellant. The appellant contended that the Commercial Court at Bhopal had already been notified under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with jurisdiction over matters arising from Betul district. The Principal District Judge, Betul, should therefore have returned the application instead of entertaining it.
The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and another, (2005) 7 SCC 791. Paragraph 30 of that ruling holds that where a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter because of a limitation imposed by statute, it cannot take up the matter, and that “An order passed by a Court having no jurisdiction is a nullity.” On that basis, the appellant sought a declaration that the application be returned.
Senior Advocate Naman Nagrath, assisted by Advocate Alkesh Agrawal, appeared for the respondent and opposed the prayer. He argued that a party that chose a wrong forum on its own cannot take advantage of its own wrong. After suffering an adverse order, the appellant could not turn around and say the Betul court lacked jurisdiction. He further submitted that returning the application at this stage would have consequences such as limitation. Finally, he argued that under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, a return could be ordered only at a stage of the suit, and once it was decreed, no such order was possible.
High Court On Jurisdiction And Return Of Section 34 Plea
The Court noted there was no dispute that a designated Commercial Court had been notified under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, even for disputes arising within Betul’s territorial jurisdiction. It held that “admittedly, the Principal District Judge at Betul had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter.”
On the objection against ordering a return, the Court referred to the Explanation below Order VII Rule 10(1) CPC, inserted by Act 10 of 1976 with effect from 01.02.1977. That Explanation provides that “for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule”.
Justice Agarwal concluded:
“once the order of the Principal District Judge, Betul, is a nullity in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harshad Chiman Lal (supra), that order is not only required to be set aside, but the application can also be returned in terms of the Explanation given below Order VII Rule X(1) of the CPC.”
Outcome
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 and returned the Section 34 application the same day. The parties are free to adopt any course available to them under law. The Court clarified that it has “not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party.”
Case Title: Deepak Sainani v. Angel Broking Ltd.
Case No.: Arbitration Appeal No. 35 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Date: 14 October 2026
