莫汉蒂诉奥里萨邦

Asma Khan
{"title":"莫汉蒂诉奥里萨邦","authors":"Asma Khan","doi":"10.59126/v2i4a6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Commercial Courts Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the \"CC Act\") was established to speed up the resolution of commercial disputes promptly and with as little interference as possible in the highest courts. The law also gives the Commercial Court jurisdiction to hear commercial arbitration proceedings. Although the intention is noble, the legislators inadvertently left jurisdictional inconsistencies in the law, resulting in a conflict with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996. The conflict of jurisdiction arises due to the distinction between the commercial courts established by law, presided over by Civil Judges Senior Division, and the provisions outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act). According to the AC Act, exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to arbitration lies with the Chief Civil Court of the respective district. This discrepancy has given rise to uncertainty regarding the authority of newly established Commercial Courts to entertain applications under the Arbitration Act. While a definitive legal resolution to this jurisdictional conflict remains elusive, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following the Appellate Court's precedent, has determined that irrespective of the claim's value, cases pertaining to arbitration must be adjudicated within the purview of the District Civil Court. It has been observed that commercial disputes connected to arbitration, as governed by Sections 9, 14, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration Law, fall under the jurisdiction of a commercial court situated within the domain of a district judge or an additional district judge. No Class I Civil Judge or any Small Claims Court can adjudicate disputes.","PeriodicalId":424180,"journal":{"name":"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS","volume":"372 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"M.G. Mohanty vs. That State of Odisha\",\"authors\":\"Asma Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.59126/v2i4a6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Commercial Courts Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the \\\"CC Act\\\") was established to speed up the resolution of commercial disputes promptly and with as little interference as possible in the highest courts. The law also gives the Commercial Court jurisdiction to hear commercial arbitration proceedings. Although the intention is noble, the legislators inadvertently left jurisdictional inconsistencies in the law, resulting in a conflict with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996. The conflict of jurisdiction arises due to the distinction between the commercial courts established by law, presided over by Civil Judges Senior Division, and the provisions outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act). According to the AC Act, exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to arbitration lies with the Chief Civil Court of the respective district. This discrepancy has given rise to uncertainty regarding the authority of newly established Commercial Courts to entertain applications under the Arbitration Act. While a definitive legal resolution to this jurisdictional conflict remains elusive, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following the Appellate Court's precedent, has determined that irrespective of the claim's value, cases pertaining to arbitration must be adjudicated within the purview of the District Civil Court. It has been observed that commercial disputes connected to arbitration, as governed by Sections 9, 14, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration Law, fall under the jurisdiction of a commercial court situated within the domain of a district judge or an additional district judge. No Class I Civil Judge or any Small Claims Court can adjudicate disputes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":424180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS\",\"volume\":\"372 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59126/v2i4a6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59126/v2i4a6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《2015年商事法庭法》(以下简称“商事法庭法”)旨在加快商事纠纷的迅速解决,并尽可能减少最高法院的干预。法律还赋予商事法庭审理商事仲裁程序的管辖权。虽然意图高尚,但立法者无意中在法律中留下了管辖权的不一致,导致与1996年《仲裁与调解法》的规定发生冲突。管辖权的冲突是由于由民事法官高级庭主持的依法设立的商事法庭与1996年《仲裁和调解法》(《仲裁和调解法》)中概述的规定之间的区别而产生的。根据《仲裁法》,裁决与仲裁有关的纠纷的专属管辖权属于相应地区的首席民事法院。这种差异使新设立的商事法庭根据《仲裁法》受理申请的权力产生了不确定性。虽然对这一管辖权冲突的最终法律解决方案仍然难以捉摸,但中央邦高等法院根据上诉法院的先例决定,无论索赔的价值如何,与仲裁有关的案件必须在地区民事法院的管辖范围内裁决。有人指出,按照《仲裁法》第9、14、34和36条的规定,与仲裁有关的商业纠纷属于地区法官或另一地区法官管辖范围内的商事法庭的管辖范围。没有一级民事法官或小额钱债法庭可以裁决纠纷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
M.G. Mohanty vs. That State of Odisha
The Commercial Courts Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "CC Act") was established to speed up the resolution of commercial disputes promptly and with as little interference as possible in the highest courts. The law also gives the Commercial Court jurisdiction to hear commercial arbitration proceedings. Although the intention is noble, the legislators inadvertently left jurisdictional inconsistencies in the law, resulting in a conflict with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996. The conflict of jurisdiction arises due to the distinction between the commercial courts established by law, presided over by Civil Judges Senior Division, and the provisions outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act). According to the AC Act, exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to arbitration lies with the Chief Civil Court of the respective district. This discrepancy has given rise to uncertainty regarding the authority of newly established Commercial Courts to entertain applications under the Arbitration Act. While a definitive legal resolution to this jurisdictional conflict remains elusive, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following the Appellate Court's precedent, has determined that irrespective of the claim's value, cases pertaining to arbitration must be adjudicated within the purview of the District Civil Court. It has been observed that commercial disputes connected to arbitration, as governed by Sections 9, 14, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration Law, fall under the jurisdiction of a commercial court situated within the domain of a district judge or an additional district judge. No Class I Civil Judge or any Small Claims Court can adjudicate disputes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信