Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56975-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 100 of 2025 Appellant :- M/s Gomti Motors Respondent :- Union of India and 2 others Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Om Tiwari, Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Komal Mehrotra Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 03.05.2024 passed by Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar whereby the application filed by the respondents for return of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) has been allowed and the application has been permitted to be returned back with liberty to file fresh. 2. The appeal is barred by 253 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the counsel representing the appellant fell critically ill on account of which the appeal could not be filed in time and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 3. The application is not contested. 4. For the reasons indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay, supported by affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the Commercial Court was not justified in ordering for return of the application. In fact, the application should have been dismissed having been filed before a Court not having jurisdiction and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel further made submissions that the respondents are acting mala fide inasmuch as the award was passed on 14.08.2020 wherein the matter was remanded back to respondent no.2 (authority of the respondents) who was directed to pass a detailed and reasoned order considering all the aspects of the matter within two months. The said award has not been implemented and no order has been passed, instead the application under Section 34 of the Act was kept pending for about four years and after its return, the same has not been filed before any Court having jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare look at the order passed by the Commercial Court would reveal that the Commercial Court at Kanpur Nagar had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and it was only the Court at Mathura which had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, as such, ordered for return of the application. 10. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, exercising the power under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C., the plaint can always be ordered to be returned back for being presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction and, therefore, in no circumstance, the order dated 03.05.2024 can be faulted with. 11. So far as the grievance raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding non implementation of the order is concerned, for the said purpose, the appellant is to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 12. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 P.Sri./AHA (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad