TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory language of section 34 of the 1996 Act, that an award, when challenged under section 34 within the time stipulated therein, becomes unexecutable. There is no discretion left with the court to pass any interlocutory order in regard to the said award except to adjudicate on the correctness of the claim made by the applicant therein. Therefore, that being the legislative intent, any direction from us contrary to that, also becomes impermissible. On facts of this case, there being no exceptional situation which would compel us to ignore such statutory provision, and to use our jurisdiction under Article 142, we restrain ourselves from passing any such order, as prayed for by the applicant. However, we do notice that this automatic suspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration Act, 1940. This Court in the said appeal after hearing the parties and with the agreement of the parties appointed Hon. Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi, former Chief Justice of India as the sole arbitrator. Before the said arbitrator both the parties by consent agreed that the proceedings should be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. It is on that basis the learned arbitrator proceeded and gave a final award. In this application, namely, I.A. No.2 in C.A. No.2522/99 made under sections 15, 17 and 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for modification of the said award made by the arbitrator, the applicant contends that since the dispute between the parties and the agreement of the parties to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 940 Act, this Court alone has the jurisdiction to modify the impugned award. While the respondent in this application contends that the proceedings before the arbitrator admittedly having proceeded under the provisions of the 1996 Act by consent of parties, for the purpose of seeking modification of the award in such proceedings, it will only be a court contemplated under the 1996 Act. It is an admitted fact that after the arbitrator was appointed by this Court, the parties by consent agreed before the arbitrator that the proceedings should go on under the provisions of the 1996 Act though the dispute arose prior to coming into force of this Act. Such a procedure is permissible under section 85(2)(a) of the 1996 Act. In the normal course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be fixed by the Arbitrator in consultation with the parties. The learned Arbitrator is requested to conclude the proceedings within four months from the day he enters upon the Arbitration. No order as to costs." It is to be noted that as per the above order, this Court has not retained any power or control over the arbitration proceedings while appointing the arbitrator by consent of parties, on the contrary, it seems this Court has merely recorded a submission of the parties as to their agreement in appointing a particular arbitrator. Even the time limit fixed therein is only a request to the learned arbitrator to conclude the proceedings within 3 months from the day he enters upon the arbitration and it is not a mandate in the sense t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, we reject this contention. In regard to the forum before which the application for modification or setting aside the award is concerned, we find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of section 34 read with section 2(e) of the 1996 Act that it is not this Court which has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for modification of the award and it could only be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction as contemplated under section 2(e) of the Act, therefore, in our opinion, this application is not maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant then contended that nearly 16 years have gone-by since the dispute between the parties arose and since the said dispute wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an interim measure. But then we noticed from the mandatory language of section 34 of the 1996 Act, that an award, when challenged under section 34 within the time stipulated therein, becomes unexecutable. There is no discretion left with the court to pass any interlocutory order in regard to the said award except to adjudicate on the correctness of the claim made by the applicant therein. Therefore, that being the legislative intent, any direction from us contrary to that, also becomes impermissible. On facts of this case, there being no exceptional situation which would compel us to ignore such statutory provision, and to use our jurisdiction under Article 142, we restrain ourselves from passing any such order, as prayed for by the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
