The District Court is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for executing Arbitral Awards under the Arbitration Act, and the direction to furnish a Bank Guarantee for an executable decree can be valid.

The petitioners/judgment debtors in Writ Petition No.3429/2005 have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur below Exhibits 22 and 23 in Special Darkhast No.53/2004 filed by the respondents/decree holders. It is by this impugned judgment and order, that the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur is competent and has jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of the Award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act") and thereby rejected the objection raised by the judgment debtors as their application under Order 21, Rule 47 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was also pending for consideration.

2. In Writ Petition No.3158/2003 the above petitioners/judgment debtors have challenged the impugned order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli below Exhibits 97 and 101 in Special Darkhast No.44/2002 filed by the respondents/decree holders. By this impugned order, the Court has directed the petitioner (judgment debtor no.2) to furnish the Bank Guarantee of Rs.12,24,929/- and further observed to decide the issue with regard to the jurisdiction as per Section 47 of the CPC, after compliance of above condition of furnishing the Bank Guarantee.

3. In Writ Petition (Stamp) No.19974/2003, the decree holder M/s. Omega Information Systems has also challenged the impugned order dated 04.03.2003 passed on Exhibits ‘97’ and ‘101’ in Special Darkhast No.44/2003.

4. The common facts are that the petitioners in Writ petition No.3429/2005 are the partners of M/s. Super Computers (the firm). An agreement dated 08.08.1997 was executed between the firm and the respondent, a registered partnership firm, with regard to supply of computers. There is a clause of Arbitration Agreement in case of dispute between the partners. As per the said clause, if any dispute arose between them, the same shall be referred to the Arbitrator who shall be appointed by consent of both the parties and such dispute, if could not be solved by the Court of law. One Shri Shrikant R.Joshi, an Arbitrator was appointed as a sole Arbitrator. As alleged, the petitioners had never given any consent for the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed an Award dated 15.02.2002 against the petitioners/judgment debtors. Based upon the said Award, an execution proceeding (Special Darkhast No.44/2002) filed by the respondents in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli and thereby seeking an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards arrears of monthly rent and maintenance charges of Rs.15,000/- per month.

5. The petitioners have raised various objections in the execution proceedings. That resulted into filing of Writ Petition No.6147/2000. The same was dismissed on 13.01.2003 keeping the point of objection to be raised under Section 47 of CPC, as preliminary issue was not framed in respect of the maintainability and the jurisdiction.

6. An application Exhibit ‘97’ was filed by the respondents for issuance of warrant against the petitioners and other judgment debtors on 31.03.2002. This application was opposed by reply on Exhibit ‘100’ on 10.02.2003. Another application Exhibit ‘101’ was filed by the petitioners to frame preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The learned executing Court, Sangli passed the impugned order dated 04.03.2003 directed the petitioners to furnish the Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs.12,24,929/- within a period of one month as a condition to frame the issues as required under Section 47 of CPC.

7. The firm M/s. Super Computers through its partner, as referred above, have filed Writ Petition No.3158/2003. The petitioners (judgment debtors) were made party in execution though the dispute was between the firm and the respondents. The petitioners were also made parties as judgment debtors in the said execution proceedings, pending in the Civil Court at Sangli.

8. Pend