1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.9654 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1771 OF 2009 Malegaon Municipal Corporation Appellant Vs. Soni Medical Stores Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.9669 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1892 OF 2009 Malegaon Municipal Corporation Appellant Vs. Ashish Agencies Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.9666 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1899 OF 2009 Malegaon Municipal Corporation Appellant Vs. Soni Medical Stores Respondents Mr.R.B.Raghuwanshi with Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for appellants. Mr.S.G.Aney, Senior Counsel with Ms.A.R.S.Baxi for respondents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR,JJ. June 10, 2009. 2 P.C. 1. Heard. These Appeals filed under Section 96 of CPC arise from the decrees dated 17/6/2006 and 7/4/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Malegaon thereby confirming the award rendered by the Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Admit. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, appeals are heard finally. 3. Mr.Raghuwanshi, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has pointed out that at the first instance the appellant Corporation has filed Special Civil Suit No.179 of 1997 against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.40,11,800/-. Mr.Aney, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the respondents filed Special Civil Suit No.69 of 1996 for recovery of Rs.17,85,725.35 and subsequently Special Civil Suit No.61 of 1997 for recovery of Rs.20,49,000/-. It is also clear from the record that Issues were framed in Special Civil Suit No.69 of 1996 and 61 of 1997 on 16/9/1997 and in the suit filed by the Corporation the Issues were framed on 16/4/1999. All the suits were clubbed for trial. Thereafter 3 on 13/10/2005 an application was filed at Exhibit 52 by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.69 of 1996 and Special Civil Suit No.179 of 1997 for referring the disputes for arbitration. It is further admitted that in the suit filed by the Corporation an application at Exhibit 42 was placed on record by the defendant for referring the disputes for arbitration. The disputes were referred to the sole Arbitrator and the Arbitrator submitted his awards on 31/3/2006 in Special Civil Suit No. 61 of 1997 and the second award dated 3/6/2006 in Special Civil Suit No.69 of 1996 and Special Civil Suit No.179 of 1997. 4. Both these awards were placed before the trial Court by a joint purshis to make the award as Rule of the Court. Resultantly the impugned decrees came to be passed based on the Arbitrator’s awards. 5. It is apparent from the record that the arbitration proceedings commencing from the appointment of the arbitrator were under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the parties appeared before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed his awards which were placed before the Court by way of a joint purshish. Mr.Raghuwanshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the Corporation had never consented or had taken any steps for referring 4 the recovery dispute to arbitration. He further submitted that the Advocate appearing for the Corporation was not authorised or instructed to sign any joint purshish giving consent for appointment of the arbitrator. All these issues including whether the prescribed procedure was followed or not can be agitated while challenging the awards passed by the Arbitrator and undoubtedly such challenge has to be raised before the appropriate forum under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was not necessary and indeed there is no such requirement under the said Act to place the Arbitrator’s award before the trial Court praying for decree in terms of the said award. The trial Court certainly acted without jurisdiction and in any case if any of the parties was aggrieved by the award, the only remedy was to file an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that too not before the trial Court who was dealing with the suits. For these reasons the impugned decree is without jurisdiction and hence a nullity. Mr.Aney, the learned Senior Counsel fairly conceded to this legal position and stated that his remedy to execute the awards passed by the Arbitrator would certainly lie under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He also stated that the awards have been partly executed. 6. Be that as it may, we allow these appeals and quash and set 5 aside the impugned decrees. We also clarify that this order setting aside the decrees will not come in the way of the respective parties either to challenge the award or the awards or to seek execution of the awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. All legal rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 8. Civil Applications do not survive and the same stand disposed, accordingly. No order as to costs. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)