The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, particularly Sections 2(e) and 36, in determining the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce an Arbitration Award.

The Applicant-Judgment Debtor, based upon the final Arbitration Award dated 25 March 2011, passed in Mumbai, in terms of consent terms dated 24 March 2011, as signed at Mumbai, filed this Execution Application for its enforcement by invoking Order-21 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) in the Court of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction at Bombay.

2. The Applicant has assigned the debt under Deed of Assignment dated 25 August 2012. The Execution Application seeks to execute the award against Judgment Debtor No.1 and also movable and immovable properties and shares of a private company Respondent No.2/ Judgment Debtor No.2, who is a Director of the Company.

3. This Court by order dated 29 August 2012, restrained the Judgment Debtor not to transfer, alienate or encumber or create any third party rights in the properties mentioned in clause (j) of the Execution Application. Admittedly, the award was never challenged in any Court by any party. The award therefore, as passed in Mumbai, based upon the consent terms, as averred, needs to be treated as enforceable and executable decree in this “Court” as contemplated under Sections 2(e) and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act).

4. The relevant Sections are 2(e) and 36 of the Arbitration Act, which reads as under:-

“2. Definitions.-

(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.”

“36. Enforcement.- Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.”

5. The Judgment Debtor, filed reply dated 27 September 2012 and apart from other resistance and opposition to the averments, as well as, the Execution Application, has raised a preliminary objections that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Execution Application and so also the Chamber Summons, therefore, be dismissed as not maintainable.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant however, resisted the same and reiterated the averments and the submissions that this “Court” has jurisdiction, as by consent the award was passed in Mumbai and which has attained finality. This Court, therefore, at Mumbai has jurisdiction, being the “Principal Court” for execution of the award which is enforceable decree as contemplated under the Arbitration Act.

7. Both the counsel argued to decide the issue of jurisdiction first and made their respective submissions accordingly. The Court is also dealing with the specific aspect of jurisdiction in this order.

8. It is necessary, first of all, to consider the scheme of the Arbitration Act with regard to the enforcement and execution of the decree by the Principal Court as contemplated under the Arbitration Act and so contemplated under the provisions of the CPC. A Division Bench of this Court in The Akola Janata Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., A Multi State Co-Operative Scheduled Bank, through its Branch Manager, Pradeep Ramchandra Goenka Vs. Raju Natthuji Badhe, Rambhau D. Khedkar, Santosh Punjaji Pohare and Nandkishor Natthuji Badhe (2011 Vol. 113 (1) Bom.L.R. 0314)has considered the scheme in the following words:-

“5….......It is a settled law vide para (16) of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Fountain Head Developers and etc. etc. v. Mrs. Maria Arcangela Sequeira deceased by L.Rs. and Ors. AIR 2007 Bom 149 that the District Judge in a District alone is the p