Section 34 Arbitral Court – Territorial & Pecuniary Jurisdiction
judgment dated 18.6.2026 of the High Court of Calcutta (OS) in AP 48 of 2026 of Kanchan Konwer and another Vs. Tushar Kanti Jana
In section 34 petition, the arbitral award dated 29.1.2026 in respect of the Development Agreement was challenged.
The objection of pecuniary jurisdiction was related to the Development Agreement that the jurisdiction of courts where the property is situated i.e. Alipore. Since the value of Award exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, the Commercial Court at Alipore has jurisdiction.
however, unless territorial jurisdiction is also established in accordance with law, such court cannot assume jurisdiction merely on the basis of the valuation of the claim.
Pecuniary jurisdiction by itself does not confer jurisdiction upon a court in the absence of territorial jurisdiction. The two requirements operate cumulatively and not alternatively. A court may possess pecuniary competence to entertain a matter;
Calcutta HC – Pecuniary value of the Arbitral Award alone does not confer jurisdiction. Section 34 challenge must go to the court having territorial jurisdiction.
Calcutta HC- Territorial Jurisdiction prevails over Pecuniary Jurisdiction as per the value of the Arbitral Award – Section 34 petition filed in the High Court having pecuniary jurisdiction is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction as per the Development Agreement.
-0-
