JUDGMENT

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court taking up the appeal and disposing of the said appeal by his order dated 4-1-2008.

The appellant herein filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the legality of the award dated 28-9-2006 passed by the sole arbitrator with a prayer to set aside the same. The learned Single Judge before whom the petition was filed held the same to be not maintainable. On appeal filed the Chief Justice held that such an appeal is also not maintainable.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

It is disclosed from the records that an application was filed by the respondent herein before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes arising between the parties in terms of the arbitration agreement.

The Jharkhand High Court entertained the said application and appointed Justice P. K. Sarkar, who is a retired Judge of the Patna High Court to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes between the parties. Pursuant to the said order, the learned arbitrator entered into the reference and passed the award on 28-9-2006.

After the award was passed, the appellant herein filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award dated 28-9-2006 passed by the sole arbitrator. The Registry filed an objection regarding the maintainability of the aforesaid petition under Section 34 of the Act. According to the Registry, against the aforesaid arbitration award, a petition under Section 34 of the Act should have been filed before the appropriate court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid objection raised by the Registry of the High Court and agreed with the said objection and held that the aforesaid petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal invoking the provision of Section 37 of the Act.

The said appeal was entertained by the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Jharkhand. After the hearing, the then Chief Justice dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the aforesaid application under Section 34 or appeal under Section 34 or appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not maintainable before the High Court. In other words, according to the Chief Justice the same should have been filed before an appropriate court as envisaged under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that since the aforesaid appeal which the appellant had filed was an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it should have been entertained and decided by a Division Bench, since the order of the learned Single Judge was under challenge. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention which is found to be prima facie untenable in view of and in the light of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The said application under Section 34 is to be filed before a court which is empowered and has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such objection filed under Section 34 of the Act. The expression "court" is defined under the provision of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, meaning the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration.

Section 37 of the Act on which emphasis was given by the counsel for the appellant appl