THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 723 of 2004 Date: 18.03.2010 Between: M/s. Dhirubhai D. Thumer & Company, Rep. by its Managing Partner Amit Patel. Appellant. And Union of India, rep. by Chief Engineer (Air Force) No.2, DC Area, MES Road, Bangalore and others. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 723 of 2004 Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal is directed against the orders dated 22.10.2003 passed in O.P. No. 103 of 1999 by the Chairman, Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking to set aside the award dated 23.02.1999 passed by the arbitrator, has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents-department. It is not disputed that the appellant entered into an agreement with the department for execution of certain works in Amla, Madhya Pradesh, and the disputes arose between the parties during the course of execution of works under the agreement. On parties moving the Karnataka High Court in CMP No.5 of 1997, the Karnataka High Court, by order dated 06.06.1997, appointed an arbitrator granting liberty to the parties to file their claims and counter claims before the arbitrator appointed. On arbitrator passing the award on 23.02.1999, the appellant herein filed OP No.103 of 1999, under Section 34 of the Act, before the Chairman, Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking to set aside the award of the arbitrator dated 23.02.1999. The respondents resisted the OP contending that once the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court of Karnataka to entertain the disputes between the parties, all subsequent applications, if any, including execution of the award or for setting aside the same have to be filed before the Karnataka High Court alone. Further, it was contended that once the arbitrator had jurisdiction to entertain the disputes of both the parties, under Section 16 of the Act, and when the appellant herein never raised the issue of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to entertain the claims raised by the department during the arbitration proceeding, he cannot now raise such objection with regard to jurisdiction of the arbitrator to entertain the claims. The learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, accepting the contention of the department, dismissed the OP. Section 42 of the Act prescribes the jurisdiction for initiation of the proceedings under Part-I i.e., from Sections 2 to 43 of the Act, which reads as under. 42. Jurisdiction:- Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a court that court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other court. Since the initial application was filed before the Karnataka High Court for appointment of an arbitrator, all subsequent applications including execution or for setting aside the award of the arbitrator have to be filed before the Karnataka High Court only. When once the lower Court came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, it has to be filed before the Karnataka High Court, and going into the merits of the award passed by the arbitrator and upholding it on point No.1, will be without jurisdiction. In view of the same, while upholding the impugned order passed by the lower Court, dismissing the OP on the point of jurisdiction, we dismiss the CMA and set aside the findings recorded by the lower Court on points 1 and 2, leaving it open to be decided by the competent Court, if any application as such is filed under Section 34 of the Act. The appellant is at liberty to avail the remedies available to him under law. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 18.03.2010. Nsr