Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of three civil revisions bearing C.R. No. 2750 of 2007, C.R. No. 2751 of 2007 and C.R. No. 2752 of 2007 in which common questions of facts and law are involved. The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation has filed these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.2.2007 whereby the Additional District Judge, Moga has declined to entertain the application moved by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator on the ground that the costs assessed by the Arbitrator under Section 31 of the Act of 1996 have not been paid and, therefore, he has a lien on the award, hence no challenge can be made to the award till such time the costs are paid. The facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 2751 of 2007.
(2.) UNDISTPUTELY , as per the arbitration clause existing in the agreement between the parties, Shri V.P. Anand was appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The fee and cost of the arbitration were not paid by both the parties as there was some dispute about the quantum of fees and costs. With the consent of the parties, the proceedings of the arbitration were concluded and it was ordered that the dispute regarding fees would be decided on the basis of the documents on record. However, both the parties did not pay the fee and cost which were fixed as Rs. 44,100/ - for each party. On 7.9.2005, the award was pronounced and was signed by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made it clear that he was making and delivering the award and not withholding the same till the payment of fee and cost though the same had not been paid by the claimant. However, he decided that under Section 39(1) of the Act of 1996, the award will be operative in the competent court for admission only when the fee and cost fixed by the Arbitrator is paid and no objection from the Arbitrator is attached with objections or execution application to be filed under Section 34 or 36 of the Act of 1996.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 after paying his share of fee and cost to the tune of Rs. 44,100/ - filed an application for enforcement of the said award. On the other hand, the petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the competent court challenging the said award on various grounds without making any payment of its share of the fee and cost to the Arbitrator. The Additional District Judge, Moga dismissed those objections being not maintainable while recording the following reasons: Heard. There is no dispute about the fact that lien on the award as permissible under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter in short referred as the "Act") is envisaged that the assessment of the costs incurred during arbitration proceedings is within exclusive purview of the Arbitrator and the costs so assessed are liable to be recovered. The arbitrator is within his right not to deliver the award except on payment of the costs demanded by it but since the costs has not been paid as per the lien created by the Arbitrator. So, the award cannot be challenged in the Court under Section 34 of the "Act". Costs which had been assessed by the Arbitrator had not been paid; and he had reserved lien regarding costs on the proceedings of award and unless such costs of the arbitration proceedings are made, the arbitral award cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. In view of the discussion held above, petition filed by the petitioner Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation being not maintainable is hereby dismissed. Against the said order, the instant revision petitions have been filed.;