FAO No.4701 of 2009 - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4701 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.02.2010 **** Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others . . . . Appellants VS. Chaman Lal Gupta and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.D.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order of District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 27.5.2009 whereby an application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), for setting aside the arbitral award dated 12.12.2003, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has, inter alia, argued that the Arbitrator has passed the award under the Arbitration Act 1940 on 12.12.2003 and amended it vide his order dated 16.1.2004 to the effect that instead of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it should be read as Arbitration Act 1940. Learned counsel for the FAO No.4701 of 2009 - 2 – appellants has submitted that as per the provisions of Arbitration Act 1940, the respondent was required to file an application under Section 14 and 17 to make the award a ‘Rule of Court’ in which the appellants could have filed objections. It is submitted that the present objections were not maintainable as prima facie found even by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur in his impugned order dated 27.5.2009. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has admitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, an application has already been filed before the Civil Court to make the award ‘Rule of Court’. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said application has been dismissed for non- prosecution but learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that application for restoration has been filed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the present objections under Section 34 of the Act was not maintainable. Therefore, it could not have been decided on merits as the remedy of filing of the objections lies with the appellants before the Civil Court where application for making the award ‘Rule of Court’ has already been filed by the respondent. In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has been very fair in conceding this legal proposition and has stated that the objections, per se, under Section 34 of the Act were not maintainable and should not have been decided by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. FAO No.4701 of 2009 - 3 – In view thereof, impugned order dated 27.5.2009 is hereby set aside and present appeal is allowed. The appellants are at liberty to file their objections in terms of provisions of Arbitration Act 1940 in view of application, which is alleged to have been filed by the respondents to make their award ‘Rule of Court’. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 25, 2010 JUDGE vivek