The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to direct the transmission of an arbitral award to a different court and allowing parties to raise all their contentions before the said court.

ORDER

1. By this application the applicant has prayed that the Registry of this e Court be directed to transfer the arbitral award dated 25-6-1996 made by the learned arbitrator late Justice A.C. Gupta, filed in this Court to the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The circumstances under which the application has been made are as under:

The applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement with regard f to the hiring of the applicants trawlers Ave Maria I and Ave Maria II. The agreement contains an arbitration clause. Certain disputes arose between the parties pertaining to the subject-matter of the agreement. The appellant (ITC Limited) terminated the agreement by notice and followed it up with a suit CS No. 736 of 1978 on the original side of the Calcutta High Court seeking a declaration that the agreements dated 21-3-1977 and 2-2-1978 were illegal and for a decree for the sum of Rs 39.64 lakhs.

3. On 24-4-1979 the applicant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for stay of the aforesaid suit in view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. The High Court allowed the petition and ordered stay of the suit. An appeal carried before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court failed. The applicant carried the matter to this Court by Civil Appeal No. 1795 of 1982. The said appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated 6-2-1989 ITC Ltd. v. George Joseph Fernandesl• By this judgment this Court upheld the view of the courts below that the reliefs claimed in the suit other than the question of ab initio illegality of the contract would be arbitrable, since the parties had agreed to have the disputes arbitrated. This Court disposed of the appeal by the following observation: (SCC p. 31, paras 29-30)

"29. Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan for the respondents states that the respondent shall have no objection to a retired Judge of the Supreme Court being appointed as arbitrator and the respondents shall not raise the question of limitation as indicated by Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant. We have no doubt that the arbitrator so appointed shall proceed in accordance with law to decide the questions including that of jurisdiction, if raised.

30. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

4. The parties thereafter agreed upon the name of late Justice A.C. Gupta, a retired Judge of this Court, as arbitrator. The arbitrator commenced proceedings and made his award on 25-2-1996. On 27-2-1996 the learned arbitrator gave notice of making the award to the advocate for the applicant forwarding a copy of the award. He also informed the applicants advocate that the original award and other papers had been filed in this Court.

5. On 22-3-1996 the appellant forwarded to the applicant a sum of Rs 6,67,385 towards the amount payable under the award, one months interest thereon at the rate of 18%, and the costs of reference. This amount was received by the applicant who acknowledged it by a letter dated 6-4- 1996. By this letter, the applicant declared his intention to challenge the award insofar as it negatived his claim in excess of Rs 6,67,385 and stated that he had received the demand draft sent by the appellant "without prejudice to our right to challenge the award before the competent court of law" .

6. On 22-4-1996 the applicant filed an application under Section 14(2) ofthe Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Vishakhapatnam. In this application he prayed for a direction to the learned arbitrator to take back the award from this Court and to file it in the court at Vishakhapatnam. He also filed an application for condoning the delay of 25 days in filing the said application.

7. On 27-1-1998 the applicant filed IA No.1 of 1998 in Civil Appeal No. g 1795 of 1982 in this Court. The substantive prayer made in this IA was as under:

"(a) direct the Reg