IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 WP(C).No. 15834 of 2008(I) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2008 IN IA 229/2008 IN ARB (O.S.) NO. 111/1996 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR & ES). BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT: P.P.XAVIER, PIDIYANCHERIL HOUSE, CHAKKALAKKAL ROAD, KOCHI - 15. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15834/ 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.229 OF 2008 IN Arb (O.S.) NO.111 OF 1996. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2008 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PALA IN I.A. NO. 229 OF 2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE scm M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 15834 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant and respondent the plaintiff in O.S.111 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Pala. The suit was originally filed before Sub Court, Kottayam on 15.6.1992 as O.S.582 of 1992 and was subsequently transferred to Sub court, Pala and renumbered as 111/1996. Ext.P1 petition was filed by the petitioner/defendant to set aside the award under Section 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940. Under Ext.P2 order, learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition, holding that court has no power to set aside the award, in view of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Ext.P2 order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. Admittedly, the suit was instituted on 15.6.1992, prior to the coming into force of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The question is whether in view of Section 85 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, court is not competent to set aside the award WP(C) 15834/2008 2 under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question has been settled by the decision of Apex Court in U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd. V. Jain Construction Co. and another (AIR 2004 SC 4335). The Apex Court held:- “This court in Milkfood Ltd. V. M/s.GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd.(JT 2004(4)SC 393), relying on or on the basis of Shetty's Constructions Co.Pvt. Ltd V.Konkan Railway Construction and another (1998) 5 SCC 599), Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH V.Steel Authority of India Ltd (1999) 9 SCC 344: JT 1999(8) SC 66), Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd V. Jindal Exports Ltd (2001)6 SCC 356), and State of West Bengal V. Amritlal Chatterjee (JT 2003 (Supp.) SC 308), held that in respect of the arbitral proceedings commenced before WP(C) 15834/2008 3 coming into force the 1996 Act, the provisions of the 1940 Act shall apply. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements of this court, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the merits of the matter afresh”. 4. The Division Bench of this court also reiterated the position in MFA 39 of 1998. In view of the settled legal position, Ext.P2 order is quashed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose Ext.P1 in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-