Jurisdiction Debate in Arbitration: Cholamandalam vs Uma Earth Movers

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Vs Uma Earth Movers and Anr. (Calcutta High Court)

In the case of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited vs. Uma Earth Movers and Anr., the Calcutta High Court dealt with complex legal issues surrounding arbitration and jurisdiction within the framework of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This case elucidates the legal intricacies involved in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for arbitration proceedings and highlights the principles governing the maintainability of applications under arbitration agreements.

Background and Legal Challenge

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited (petitioner) sought the appointment of a Receiver and a restraint on Uma Earth Movers and Anr. (respondents) from transferring or disposing of assets financed by the petitioner. The respondents challenged the application on three grounds: jurisdiction under section 42 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; bar under Order XXIII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and improper filing location per the arbitration agreement.

Jurisdiction and Maintainability

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.