- (1.) This application is directed against the order no.12 dated May 11, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sixteenth Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.1126 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) A dispute arose between the parties over certain points of an agreement dated January 30, 2002, which lays down a clause for settlement of the dispute by appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, an arbitrator was appointed by the Hon'ble Justice, Calcutta High Court. The arbitrator submitted an award. The opposite party filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore. In that application, the petitioners filed an application under Section 42 of the said Act of 1996 contending, inter alia, that the application for setting aside the award is not maintainable before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas. That application was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that according to the scheme of the Act when there is an arbitration clause in an agreement, the dispute between the parties shall be settled through the arbitration proceedings and for that reason at the initiation of one of the parties, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Hon'ble High Court appointed an arbitrator to solve the dispute. Then the arbitrator submitted his award. That award was challenged by the opposite party by way of filing an application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996. According to the provisions of Section 42 of the said Act of 1996, such award can be challenged only before the Hon'ble High Court and not to the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore. Thus, he contends that since initial application was initiated before this Hon'ble Court, the subsequent applications are to be filed before this Hon'ble Court and not to any other forum. In support of his contention, Mr. Roychowdhyry has referred to the decision of (2008)3 C.L.T. Page 1 and 2003 (3) ARB.L.R. 530 (Delhi), thus he submits that the learned Additional District Judge has committed a wrong and so the impugned order should be set aside.;