1 SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2009 in CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.771 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.597 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 510 OF 2009 ALONGWITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2006 IN ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 7TH JULY 2005 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. .....Appellant Versus M/s.Eskay Engineers .....Respondents Mr.Samit Shukla a/w. Mr. Viral Shukla i/b. M/s. Shukla & Associates, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. Devvrat Dhankar i/b. Mr. S. S. Phadke, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 30th June, 2009 and 1st July, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of 2 this Court. By that order, two chamber summons taken out by the judgment debtor and one chamber summons taken out by the decree holder have been disposed of. The judgment debtor who is the appellant, was challenging the competence of this Court to entertain execution. The learned Single Judge has considered that the petition challenging the arbitration award in relation to which execution proceedings have been filed, was filed by the appellant itself in this very Court. The learned Single Judge as relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Chimanlal Modi Versus DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 791 to say that the objection of territorial jurisdiction of the Court is capable of being waived and the appellant by filing petition under section 34 before this Court challenging the award and also subsequent conduct has inferred that the objection was waived. We find no fault in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. What is further to be seen here is that the objection that amount in excess of what is awarded by the Award is tried to be recovered was raised by filing a chamber summons. Admittedly, that chamber summons was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. What was kept open was right to raise objection to the calculations of the decreetal amount made by the decree holder. Appeal filed against that order of the learned Single Judge has admittedly been dismissed by the Division Bench. Now the objections that were raised were, whether the Arbitrator who has awarded refund of the security 3 deposit and interest under section 31(7) for post award period had jurisdiction and power to do so. This contention does not relate even remotely to the calculation of the amount to be recovered. In our opinion, in view of the dismissal of the earlier chamber summons, now this contention could not have been raised. Taking overall view of the matter, we find that the learned Single Judge has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and there is no room to interfere with the order. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 2. At this stage request is made for stay of the operation of this Order. By this order, we have merely rejected the appeal. No useful purpose will be served by staying operation of this order. Request is rejected. 3. In view of disposal of the appeal, the notice of motion nos.2828 and 2984 of 2009 does not survive for consideration and same are disposed of, as such. (D. K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R. V. MORE, J.)