NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

1

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

MISC. PETITION No. 4181 of 2025

ATHLETICS SANGH MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Deepesh Joshi - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Malviya – Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocates with Shri Rajeev Mishra –

Advocate for respondent No.4.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

(Reserved on 17.11.2025)

(Pronounced on: 06.01.2026)

The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the

Principal District Judge dated 25.06.2025, whereby the Principal

District Judge has rejected application of the petitioner for transfer of

the application under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act

1996, to the Court of District Judge from the Court of Civil Judge,

Senior Division and it has been held by the Principal District Judge

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

2

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

that the cases have rightly been transferred to the Court of Civil

Judge, Senior Division.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is an

arbitral award dated 17.06.2016 in the matter of management of

Athletics Sangh, Madhya Pradesh and it was a dispute between rival

sports bodies/associations that who would be the real athletic body of

the State of Madhya Pradesh and would be entitled to be recognised

by the Athletics Federation of India as the real athletic body of the

State of Madhya Pradesh. The arbitral award declared M.P. Athletics

Association, held entitled to be authorised by the Athletics Federation

of India. This award was challenged by the present petitioner being

Athletics Sangh, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 34 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act 1996 and in this manner two cases i.e. MJC AV

No.170054 of 2016 and MJC AV No.920068 of 2016 are pending

before the Court at Bhopal. Initially, the said cases were proceeding

before the District Court of VIIIth District Judge, Bhopal. However,

later on, the said cases were transferred by the order of the Principal

District Judge, Bhopal dated 29.08.2024 to the Court of Civil Judge

Senior Division, Bhopal which has been nominated as Commercial

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

3

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

Court of Civil Judge level in Bhopal. However, the case ought to have

been continued before the Commercial Court of District Court at

Bhopal and ought not to have been transferred to Commercial Court

of Civil Judge at Bhopal.

3. It is argued that though in view of judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Jaycee Housing (P) Ltd. vs. High

Court of Orissa, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 549, it has been held that

Commercial Court subordinate to rank of Principal Civil Court in

District, has jurisdiction to hear all applications or appeals under the

Act of 1996 and that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 would have

overriding effect in that matter on the Act of 1996, but, in the present

case, since there is no specified value of the claim, therefore,

the application could not have been transferred to the Commercial

Court and it should continue only as per the Act of 1996 before the

Court as defined in Section 2(e) as the Principal Civil Court

of original jurisdiction, which shall be the Principal District Judge or

any District Judge under him.

4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by learned

counsel for the respondent on the ground that the Principal District

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

4

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

Judge has not erred in passing the impugned order and that in view of

judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaycee (supra)

the case can continue before the Civil Judge who has been nominated

as Commercial Court.

5. In the present case, the dispute is whether the applications filed

under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 would continue before the Court

as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996 or would be transferred

to the Commercial Court of Civil Judge as per the Act of 2015. As per

Act of 1996, “Court” is defined in Section 2(e) as under:-

“2(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;

xx xx xx

6. The expression “principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction”

has been explained in Section 19 of the Civil Courts Act, 1977 to be

the Court of District Judge. Section 19 of the Act of 1977 is as under:-

“19. District Court to be principal Civil Court of original

jurisdiction.— The Court of the District Judge shall be deemed to

be the District Court or principal Civil Court of original

jurisdiction in the district.”

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

5

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

7. As per the Act of 2015 “commercial dispute” is defined as per

Section 2(1)(c) as under:-

“2. Definitions.—

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,––

(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of––

(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and

traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including

enforcement and interpretation of such documents;

(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;

(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;

(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft

equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of

the same;

(v) carriage of goods;

(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;

(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in

trade or commerce;

(viii) franchising agreements;

(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;

(x) management and consultancy agreements;

(xi) joint venture agreements;

(xii) shareholders agreements;

(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the

services industry including outsourcing services and financial

services;

(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;

(xv) partnership agreements;

(xvi) technology development agreements;

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

6

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and

unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names,

geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;

(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;

(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources

including electromagnetic spectrum;

(xx) insurance and re-insurance;

(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and

(xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the

Central Government.

Explanation.––A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a

commercial dispute merely because—

(a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for

realisation of monies out of immovable property given as security or

involves any other relief pertaining to immovable property;

(b) one of the contracting parties is the State or any of its agencies

or instrumentalities, or a private body carrying out public

functions.”

8. As per Section 10 of the said Act, jurisdiction in respect of

arbitration matters has been conferred to the Commercial Courts,

which is as under:-

“10. Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters.—Where the

subject-matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a

Specified Value and––

(1) If such arbitration is an international commercial arbitration,

all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the

provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)

that have been filed in a High Court, shall be heard and disposed of

by the Commercial Division where such Commercial Division has

been constituted in such High Court.

(2) If such arbitration is other than an international commercial

arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

7

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that have been filed on the original side of the

High Court, shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial

Division where such Commercial Division has been constituted in

such High Court.

(3) If such arbitration is other than an international commercial

arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such

arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that would ordinarily lie before any principal

civil court of original jurisdiction in a district (not being a High

Court) shall be filed in, and heard and disposed of by the

Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such

arbitration where such Commercial Court has been constituted.”

9. As per the aforesaid Section 10, arbitration matters would be

covered by the Act of 2015 and the Commercial Courts would have

jurisdiction when it is a commercial dispute of a specified value. The

determination of specified value is to be made as per Section 12,

which is as under:-

“12. Determination of Specified Value.—

(1) The Specified Value of the subject-matter of the

commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application shall be

determined in the following manner:––

(a) where the relief sought in a suit or application is for

recovery of money, the money sought to be recovered in the suit or

application inclusive of interest, if any, computed up to the date of

filing of the suit or application, as the case may be, shall be taken

into account for determining such Specified Value;

(b) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application

relates to movable property or to a right therein, the market value

of the movable property as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal

or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for

determining such Specified Value;

(c) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application

relates to immovable property or to a right therein, the market

value of the immovable property, as on the date of filing of the suit,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

8

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into

account for determining Specified Value; [and]

(d) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application

relates to any other intangible right, the market value of the said

rights as estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for

determining Specified Value.

(2) The aggregate value of the claim and counterclaim, if

any as set out in the statement of claim and the counterclaim, if

any, in an arbitration of a commercial dispute shall be the basis for

determining whether such arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction

of a Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division or

Commercial Court, as the case may be.

(3) No appeal or civil revision application under section

115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as the case

may be, shall lie from an order of a Commercial Division or

Commercial Court finding that it has jurisdiction to hear a

commercial dispute under this Act.”

10. As per Section 12(2) above, in arbitration of a commercial

dispute, the amount set out in statement of claim and counter claim,

the aggregate thereof shall be the basis for determining whether the

arbitration is subject to jurisdiction of Commercial Division,

Commercial Appellate Division or Commercial Court.

11. In the present case, the dispute is as to which of the two rival

bodies, would represent Madhya Pradesh in Athletics Association of

India. The dispute is not a commercial dispute as it is not covered by

any of the Clauses (i) to (xxii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015.

The arbitration award in the present case, arose from a final order

dated 12.02.2015 passed by this Court in WP No.14110/2012 wherein

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

9

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

the Indian Olympic Association was a party and Indian Olympic

Association had taken a plea that the dispute that which of the two

rival bodies can represent the State of M.P. in athletics, can only be

resolved through process of arbitration under the rules of Indian

Olympic Association. In view of the said contention made by the

Indian Olympic Association in the writ petition filed by the present

petitioner, the parties were directed to resolve the dispute through

arbitration and Indian Olympic Association was directed to constitute

the Tribunal within four weeks. It is in background of these facts that

the arbitration proceedings commenced in the present case and the

Arbitral Tribunal gave its award on 17.06.2016.

12. The arbitration in the present case is not a commercial dispute,

nor has any money value. There is no money claim made by one party

and repudiated by the other party nor any counter claim has been

made by one party and repudiated by the other party. The

determination of specified value as per Section 12(2) of the Act of

2015, in arbitration matters would be the aggregate value of claim and

counter claim. However, there is neither any value of claim nor any

value of counter claim in the present case and the arbitration has been

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

10

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

carried out only as per the rules of the Indian Olympic Association to

carry out arbitration between rival sports associations.

13. So far as the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Jaycee (supra) is concerned, in the said judgement, it has been

held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the Act of 2015 will have

overriding effect over the Act of 1996 and all suits and applications

including applications under Act of 1996 relating to commercial

dispute of specified value shall have to be transferred to Commercial

Court. The result of the ration laid down therein is that jurisdiction

under the Act of 2015 can be conferred on Civil Judge Senior

Division and therefore, the arbitration matters can validly be decided

by Civil Judge Senior Division. As per Section 3(3) of the Act of

2015, the commercial disputes can be filed before the

Commercial Court which can either be at the level of District Court or

a Court below the level of District Judge, and that would be that of

Civil Judge.

14. In the present case, as the dispute in question is not a

commercial dispute, nor has any specified value nor its value can be

determined in accordance with Section 12(2) of the Act of 2015,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:414

11

M.P. No.4181 of 2025

therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the

peculiar nature of dispute in the present case, it cannot be taken

cognizance by the Commercial Court and can only be decided by the

“Court” as per Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996.

15. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The order of the Principal

District Judge dated 25.06.2025 is set aside. The Principal District

Judge, Bhopal is directed to transfer the matters either to himself or to

a District Court under him in terms of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996

within 30 days of this order.

16. Petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE

psm