ICK INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED VS HTG MANAGED SERVICES LIMITED

The Court has heard arguments on both sides on an application for an order to set aside the order of this Court dated 1st February, 2023. The Court has read the Affidavits both for and against this application. Under paragraph 26 of the Affidavit in Support to the application, you find the gravamen of the Applicant’s case which is that the matter from Commercial Court 10 having been reassigned to this Court, same ought to be determined before any other application relating to the enforcement of the arbitral award. Furthermore, it is the Chief Justice who reassigns cases and so the docket ought to be transferred to the Chief Justice for reassignment. This Court is of the opinion that Counsel for the Applicant seems to be under a misconception that a matter from Commercial Court 10 has been reassigned to this Court. I have carefully studied and examined all the processes relating to this matter and I find that proceedings were stayed in this Court in respect to this matter awaiting the outcome of an application pending in Commercial Court 10. In the Ruling in Commercial Court 10, the trial Judge upheld a Preliminary Legal Objection by the Defendant/Respondent that since the matter was already pending in Commercial Court 7, the Plaintiff/Applicant ought not to have filed a fresh suit to challenge the arbitral award but rather should have placed the issue here before Court 7 which had stayed the proceedings earlier. After the preliminary Legal Objection was upheld, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed a certiorari application before the Supreme Court against the decision of the trial Judge in Court 10 for upholding the Preliminary Legal Objection and same was dismissed. Having dismissed that Certiorari application meant that the Ruling of Commercial Court 10 stands and therefore, there is nothing in the way of this Court not to continue with the hearing of the earlier application for the Defendant/Respondent by lifting the stay of proceedings. In Order 4 Rule 2 of C.I. 47, when it comes to recommendation to be made to the Chief Justice for the transfer of a suit is discretional and such objection should only be upheld if it is well founded. This Court is of the opinion that this objection from the Plaintiff/Applicant is not well founded. This Court already has jurisdiction to hear the matter which the Defendant/Respondent brought before it and which is to enforce an arbitral award. The Ruling in Commercial Court 10 was to the effect that there is no need for multipli