IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4757 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.08.2009 Krishan Lal Garg … Petitioner Versus Punjab State Co-op Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.Sumeet Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Vinod K. Sharma, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh in Arbitration case No.73 dated 8.9.2004 being without jurisdiction, void, inoperative in law. The order impugned by the petitioner reads as under:- “On instructions from my client respondent No.1 Krishan Lal Garg I state that the impugned award dt. 30.4.2004 may be set aside. It may also be mentioned that the respondent No.1 has also moved objection petition against this award in the court of Addl. District Judge, Bathinda praying for setting aside of this award. RO&AC. Sd/-ADJ 25.1.2006 Statement of Sh.Dinesh Gupta, Counsel for objector. W.O. I have heard the statement of Sh.Atul Kumar Saini. In view of statement given by Sh.Atul Kumar Saini, counsel for respondent No.1 by the award may be set aside as the objectors have also prayed for the same in the objection petition. RO&AC Sd/-ADJ 25.1.2006 Present:- Sh.Dinesh Kumar Gupta, counsel for objector. CR No.4757 of 2006 (O&M) Sh.Atul Kumar Saini, counsel for respondent No.1. Statements of Sh.Atul Kumar Saini, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh.Dinesh Kumar Gupta, counsel for objector recorded. In view of their statements, which have been recorded above, the award dt.30.4.2004 passed by respondent No.2 Sh.S.M.S.Sandhu is hereby set aside and the objection petition filed by objector Markfed is hereby accepted. File be consigned to the record room. Announced: 25.1.2006 Sd/- Addl. District Judge Chandigarh” Brief facts of the case are that, the dispute between the parties was referred to respondent No.4, appointed Arbitrator as per terms of the agreement. The learned Arbitrator gave his award on 30.4.2004 for a sum of Rs.1,13,089/- Dis-satisfied with the award, the petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the ‘Act’) in the Court of District Judge, Bathinda on 27.7.2004 and prayed for setting aside of the award. Respondent No.1 also filed objections against the award passed by learned Arbitrator, in the Court of District Judge at Chandigarh on 30.7.2004. On basis of two objection petitions, two parallel proceedings were started. Learned District Judge, Bathinda on coming to know about the proceedings pending before the District Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated 14.3.2005 transferred the petition pending to the learned Court at Chandigarh. However, the file was returned by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, for want of jurisdiction with the District Judge, Bathinda to transfer a case out of his district. Since no petition was pending before learned District Judge, Bhatinda, on account of transfer, the learned District Judge, Chandigarh 2 CR No.4757 of 2006 (O&M) continued to proceed with the matter, and with the consent of the parties passed impugned order. In view of the order passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh, learned District Judge, Bathinda dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner, for the reasons that the award already stood set aside by the District Judge at Chandigarh. The order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that order Annexure P-3 is without jurisdiction, being in violation of Section 42 of the Act. This contention, of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the reasons that the District Judge, Bathinda had refused to continue with the petition filed under Section 42 of the Act. On the date of order, no petition was pending before learned District Judge, Bathinda. The jurisdiction of the Chandigarh District Judge to proceed with the matter could not be disputed, both the courts being Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court at Chandigarh entertained and continued with the petition though filed later, as the District Judge, Bathinda had refused to proceed with the matter. Therefore, there was only one petition under Section 34 for all intent and purposes. This is what has been done. Furthermore, the petitioner himself continued to appear and got the award set aside. He is therefore estopped to challenge the jurisdiction of courts at Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it was beyond the powers of the District Judge to set aside the award on the basis of consent order, or on the basis of the statement of the parties. 3 CR No.4757 of 2006 (O&M) In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in case of Firm Nank Chand and others Vs. Lala Pannalal Proprietor, AIR 1963 Allahabad 68 wherein it has been held as under:- “Under S.30 three grounds have been mentioned on which the award can be set aside and the language of that section is imperative. There is no provision in the Act under which a Court can ignore the award when all the parties to the award desire it to be cancelled. Nor is it correct to say that under S.33 the Court has ample power to set aside the award on any grounds other than those mentioned in S.30. Section 33 relates to the procedure which has to be adopted for getting an award set aside, while S.30 confines the power or jurisdiction of the Court to which an application is made for setting aside an award on the grounds mentioned in that section. The two sections have to be read together.” Though the judgment relied upon is with regard to powers of court under 1940 Act, this can be applied to cases under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as section 34 of the Act also does not empower the District Judge to set aside award on the basis of statement of parties. This revision petition is allowed the impugned order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, to decide the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Act on merit in accordance with law. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] Judge 27.08.2009 sd 4