The judgment establishes the limited jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or his designate under the 1996 Act and interprets the provisions of Section 14(2) in determining the maintainability of the application.

JUDGMENT :

S.B. Sinha, J. - 1. An application has been filed by the appellants invoking jurisdiction of this Court purported to be under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the 1996 Act") for terminating the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator for appointment of Substitute Arbitrator as also for withdrawal of his Authority in terms of Article 8 of the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996.

2. Indisputably, disputes and differences had arisen between the parties. There existed an arbitration agreement. An application under Section 11(5) of the 1996 Act was filed being Arbitration Petition No. 19/2000. By an Order dated 27.9.2000, Shri B.J. Divan, former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court was appointed as sole arbitrator.

3. In its Order dated 27.9.2000, this Court directed that the sole arbitrator would determine the question as to whether there existed a valid agreement between the parties and consequently had jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings for arbitration or not. An application was filed by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator on or about 20.8.2001. He passed an interim award opining that he had jurisdiction to proceed further in the arbitration proceedings and determine the disputes between the parties.

4. Indisputably, no final Award has yet been passed by the learned Arbitrator.

5. Whereas, allegations have been made in the application that the learned Arbitrator had unnecessarily been delaying the arbitral proceedings and had not been taking any initiative to dispose of the same, the respondents contend that the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator have been going on without any delay.

6. The question, however, which falls for consideration is as to whether this petition is maintainable before this Court. An application under Sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the 1996 Act was maintainable before the Chief Justice of this Court. The learned Judge, as a designate of the Chief Justice of India, passed the Order dated 29.9.2000 appointing the learned Arbitrator. It was a judicial order.

7. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the 1996 Act reads as under:-

"Section 14(2)If a controversy remains concerning any of the grounds referred to in clause (a) of Sub-section (1), a party may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, apply to the court to decide on the termination of the mandate."

8. Application in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 14, thus, lies before a 'Court' within the meaning of the 1996 Act.

9. It is only thus the 'Court', within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act which can entertain such an application raised by the parties herein and determine the dispute therein on merit.

10. Unlike the 1940 Act, "Court" has been defined in Section 2(1)(e) to mean;

"2(1)(e) Court means 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 if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any court of Small Causes"

11. As a "Court" has been defined in 1996 Act itself, an application under Section 14(2) would be maintainable only before the Principal Civil Court which may include a High Court having jurisdiction but not this Court.

12. This Court in passing its Order dated 27.9.2000, as noticed hereinbefore, did not and could not retain any jurisdiction in itself as could be done in suitable cases under the 1940 Act. It even did not determine the validity or otherwise of the Arbitration Agreement. It allowed the parties to take recourse to their remedies before the learned Arbitrator. When the said Order was passed, this Court was considered to have only an administrative power, but the same has since been held to be a judicial power in SBP &