- (1.) This appeal would arise out of an order of the learned District Judge declining to interfere with the award published by the arbitrator. Facts would depict, the National Highway Authority of India, the appellant above named, entrusted the work to the respondent for construction of widening to 4/6 lanes and upgrading of the existing two lane roads in NH-60 in the State of West Bengal from Laxmannath to Kharagpur. The work would value rupees three hundred twenty nine crores. The dispute arose between the parties that were referred to Dispute Review Board where the same could not be resolved. It was thus referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the claims of the respondent save and except claim no.1 and 3. The Tribunal awarded rupees forty three crores fifty six lacs twenty nine thousand in respect of claim no.1 together with interest and rupees five crores twenty lacs one hundred forty against claim no.3 together with interest thereon. The National Highway Authority challenged the award before the Court of District Judge, Midnapur (Paschim) that was heard by the Additional District Judge (4th Court), Midnapur (Paschim). The learned Judge dismissed the application on contest vide judgment and order dated April 26, 2011. The Highway Authority challenged the said decision before us by the instant appeal that came up for admission before us on August 3, 2012. As a statutory appeal, the appeal was to be heard by us after admission. Since the appeal was in form that would attract the order of admission. The question was however, raised by the respondent, since the award would, in effect, a money decree that could be executed through the process of execution contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal would attract deposit of the awarded sum in Court as a pre-requisite under Order XLI Rule 1. Such contention was however, disputed by the appellant. The appellant contended that it was a statutory appeal and the Court would not have any other option but to admit it and dispose it of on meit. The provisions of Order XLI, Rule1 of Rule 5 would not attract.
(2.) We heard Mr. Jaydeep Kar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Jayantra Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) Mr. Kar relied on Sections 35, 36 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to contend that an award could only be enforced after reaching finality on the same. The provisions would make the award enforceable after three months of its publication or after the application for setting aside was dismissed. According to Mr. Kar, since the application for setting aside was dismissed, the appeal being a continuation of the original proceeding would attract embargo as contemplated under Section 36.;