Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65680 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1807 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shesh Narayan Tripathi Respondent :- Sushil Kumar Ojha And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Aarushi Khare,Mukesh Kumar Pandey,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Swapnil Kumar,Abhishek Mishra,Abhishek Misra Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Through this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 09.02.2018 passed by District Judge, Fatehpur in Misc. Case No.37/74/2018 rejecting the application moved under Section 14 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1996") for terminating the mandate of Arbitrator. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and father of respondent No.1 had entered into a partnership agreement on 18.01.2011 to run a business of brick kiln. The father of respondent No.1 unfortunately died on 19.01.2012 and the partnership agreement came to an end. 3. As the dispute arose between respondent No.1 and petitioner, an application under Section 11 of Act of 1996 was moved before this Court for appointment of arbitrator. One Maqsood Ahmad, a retired District Judge, was appointed as sole arbitrator on 09.4.2014. Later on, one Arun Prakash, retired District Judge was appointed as arbitrator on 3.2.2017. 4. The petitioner moved an application under Section 14 of Act of 1996 for terminating the mandate of the arbitrator appointed by this Court before the Court of District Judge, Fatehpur. The said application was rejected vide order dated 09.2.2018, hence this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below was not correct to reject the application filed under Section 14 of the Act of 1996 for terminating the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground that it was not maintainable before the principal Civil Court under section 2(1)(e) and the same was maintainable before the High Court as the arbitrator was appointed in proceedings under Section 11 of Act of 1996. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Apex Court in NIMET Resources Inc. & Anr. vs. Essar Steels Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 313 and judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in B.M.G. Construction vs. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and others 2012 (6) AWC 6511, judgment dated 26.02.2019 rendered in Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.1 of 2018 (P.T.C. Techno Pvt. Ltd. vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) and judgment of this Court dated 02.12.2022 in Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.4 of 2022 (Udai Bhan Singh vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.). 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 could not dispute the legal proposition and submitted that it is the principal Civil Court which has to decide the application filed under Section 14 of Act of 1996 for terminating the mandate of the arbitrator. 7. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Before proceeding further to decide the issue in hand, a cursory glance of Section 2(1)(e) of Act of 1996 is necessary for better appreciation of the case, which is extracted hereasunder:- "2. (1)(e) "Court" means-- (i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;" 9. From perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that it is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes. 10. The matter relating to decision on terminating the mandate of an arbitrator is covered by the aforesaid provision and it is only the principal Civil Court who has jurisdiction to decide the same. 11. It has already been decided in Udai Bhan Singh (supra) and P.T.C. Techno Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that it is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction who has the jurisdiction to decide such matter and not the High Court. The power under Section 11 of Act of 1996 was exercised by the High Court for appointment of arbitrator. The instant matter relating to Act of 1996 is covered by Section 2(1)(e) of Act of 1996 as the 'Court' has been defined under the said provision. The matter relating to Section 14 has to be adjudicated by the principal Civil Court and not the High Court. 12. The view taken by the District Judge is totally against the provision of Section 2(1)(e) of Act of 1996 as well as decision rendered by this Court in Udai Bhan Singh (supra) and P.T.C. Techno Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 13. In view of the said fact, the order dated 09.02.2018 passed by District Judge, Fatehpur in Misc. Case no.37/74/2018 is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. 14. The Court below is requested to proceed with the matter and decide the application filed under Section 14 of Act of 1996 for terminating the mandate of the arbitrator strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both the affected parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Kushal Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad