Seetaram Reddy, J. - After hearing the arguments particularly with reference to Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act as to the jurisdiction of this court whether it would be competent for this court to receive the award having appointed the arbitrator by this Court, or was it to be referred to the Lower Court, on a conspectus of case law to which reference will be made later, we have come to the conclusion that this court alone has got jurisdiction, which is exclusive in nature, to receive the award and make a rule of the court. Hence, we direct the Arbitrator to file the award in this court. At the direction of this court, the Arbitrator filed his award in the court and the same has been recorded. The Government is given thirty days time from today for filing objections, if any.

Post the petitions on November 11, 1987.

This court in C.M.P. Nos. 12910 and 12911 of 1987 passed an order on September 4, 1987 allowing the Arbitrator to file the award, and the same was received and recorded holding that this court alone has got exclusive jurisdiction to make a rule of the court and it was stated that reasons for the said order will be given later. Hence, this order.

This Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2324 and 2325 of 1984 made an order on June 17, 1985 as under :

"We may however state after eliciting both the parties that even at this stage any person could be named by way of suggestion; the learned Government Pleader came out in favour of one Sri T.K. Mohana Rao, a retired Chief Engineer to which the learned counsel for the appointment of the said person as a sole arbitrator. In view of this we appoint Sri T.K. Mohana Rao, as a sole arbitrator who is a retired Chief Engineer, Government of A.P., R/o H. No. 10-2-289/31, Shantinagar, Hyderabad."

Pursuantly, the Arbitrator intended to file the award for being received and recorded. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent here in that this court cannot receive the award and make a rule of the court, as it has to be remitted back to the lower court. The answer depends upon the comprehension of the provision enacted in sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, which reads :-

"Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where in any reference any application under this act has been made in a court competent for entertain it, that court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference, and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that court and in no other court."

The arguments were beard. The case law cited is as under; In Kumbha Mawji v. Dominion of India (AIR 1953 SC 313), the Supreme Court held that :

"In the context of Section 31(4), it is reasonable to think that the phrase "in any reference" means in the matter of reference. The word "Reference" having been defined in the Act as "reference to arbitration", the phrase "in a reference", is, therefore, comprehensive enough to cover also an application first made after the arbitration is completed and a final award is made."

In M. & A. Machinery Corpn. v. M/s. Mope (India) Ltd. (AIR 1983 Cal. 492), the Calcutta High Court held :

"To find out who has appointed the arbitrator in this matter, the order dated 3-5-1979 has to be construed carefully. I agree with Mr. Roy that in Section 33 application, the question of appointment of an arbitrator by court will not arise. But what happened in this case? The arbitration clause in this matter is that the Managing Director of the respondent will appoint a sole arbitrator and the petitioner will not be entitled to object if an employee of the respondent, even if he had dealt with the matter earlier and had expressed his opinion in any matter or all matters relating to the disputes, is appointed as the sole arbitrator by the Managing Director. This will be clear from Clause 3001 of the General Conditions of contract for pur