1 CAR 40.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2005 M/s. K.N. Electrical Works. ... Applicant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane and Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Sandesh D. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. Mandar Limaye for Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD 14 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant states that no review is sought of the order dated 9 January 2009 which is based on the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. However, since the Court had set aside the order of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain a Petition under Section 34, a clarification has been sought to the effect that this would not preclude the Applicant from moving an application for seeking 2 CAR 40.11.sxw the benefit of provisions under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the order of this Court dated 9 January 2009 makes it clear, the only ground on which the Judgment of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane was set aside is that the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division was not a Court within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The last sentence of the order in fact clarifies that since the Appeal has been allowed by this Court only on the question of jurisdiction, it would be open to the Respondents to pursue such remedies as are available in law for challenging the arbitral award. 2. Accordingly, this Civil Application is disposed of with the clarification that it would be open to the Applicant to pursue all appropriate remedies including appropriate applications as may be available on the question of limitation. 3. The Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)