Civil Revision No.140 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.140 of 2007 +Date of Decision: 29.10.2009 The Punjab State Electronics Development and Production Corporation Limited ...... Petitioner Versus Country Club (India) Limited .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be report in the Digest? Present: Mr.T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the respondent. *** HEMANT GUPTA J. (ORAL) The Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned District Judge, Ropar on 21.11.2006, whereby an application filed by the petitioner disputing the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge to entertain the objections against the Award given by an Arbitrator appointed by this Court was dismissed. Hon'ble Mr.J.S.Sekhon, Retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an Arbitrator by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2005. The learned Arbitrator has given Award dated 11.06.2006. The respondent herein filed objections to said Award in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (herein to be referred to as 'the Act'), before the Court of learned District Judge. The jurisdiction to entertain said objections by Civil Revision No.140 of 2007 -2- the learned District Judge was disputed as not maintainable in view of the fact that the Arbitrator was appointed by this Court. The issue whether the objections are maintainable before the learned District Judge or before the Court which has appointed an Arbitrator under Section 42 of the Act has came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment titled as Punjab State Electricity Board V/s Railway Board and others PLR 2006 (2) 691. It was held that: - “A comparison of the provisions of Section 31(4) of 1940 Act and that of section 42 of the Act shows that such provisions are substantially the same. However, it is the definition of the Court contained in Section 2(c) of 1940 Act which is materially different from clause 2(e) of the Act. Under 1940 Act, the “Court” means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit. While interpreting the said provisions, it has been found that even the appointment of an arbitrator by the Supreme Court will confer exclusive jurisdiction upon that Court alone to entertain the objections against the said award.” xxx “However, the objections under the Act in terms of Section 34 are required to be filed before the Court which is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. In the present case, the parties have decided to resolve their dispute through an arbitrator consented in proceedings under the writ proceedings pending before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such consent is not in terms of the provisions of the Act. There were no proceedings initiated between the parties under the Act before the filing of objections by the objectors under Section 34 of the Act before this Court. Therefore, the objections had to be filed by the objections before the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in terms of section 2(e) of the Civil Revision No.140 of 2007 -3- Act and not before the writ court. Under the new Act, the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator is contemplated to be separate and distinct from the procedure of challenge to the award of the Arbitral tribunal. The interpretation sought to be raised will, in fact, negate the challenge procedure to the award of the Arbitral Tribunal in Part I of the Act. Such interpretation cannot be accepted.” In view of the above, the issue raised in the present petition stands decided in the aforesaid Judgment. In view thereof, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the order passed which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. Parties to appear before the Additional District Judge, Mohali, the successor Court, on 30.11.2009 to take further proceedings in accordance with law. 29.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shamsher JUDGE