V.M. Kanade, J.

1. The Appellant – Maharashtra State Electricity Board which is now known as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) has filed this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mrs. R.S. Dalvi, J.) dated 18/3/2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein and confirmed the Award dated 18/06/2004 which was given by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. For the sake of convenience the Appellant shall be hereinafter referred to as “MSEB”, though now it is known as MSEDCL and the Respondent M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd shall be hereinafter referred to as “DSL”. The matter travelled to the Apex Court on more than couple of occasions. Criminal complaints were filed by DSL against the Officers of MSEB and one such criminal case is still pending. MSEB also has made counter-allegations against DSL. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 18/06/2004, MSEB filed an Arbitration Petition under section 34 of the said Act which was heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: D.K. Deshmukh, J.) and he was pleased to allow the Petition and set aside the Arbitral Award. Against this order, DSL preferred an appeal under section 37 which was partly allowed by the Division Bench (Coram: Bilal Nazki & Kumbhakoni, JJ.) and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge. The order of remand was challenged by both, MSEB & DSL. The appeal filed by DSL challenging the order of remand was dismissed. Thereafter, Arbitration Petition was heard by the learned Single Judge Mrs. R.S. Dalvi, J., who was pleased to dismiss the Petition and confirm the Arbitral Award by her judgment and order dated 18/3/2009. Thereafter, appeal filed by MSEB was heard by the Apex Court and it was disposed of. Interim orders which were passed during pendency of the Arbitration Petition and the present appeal also were subject matter of further orders which were passed.

3. This appeal was heard before number of Benches, some of them had recused themselves and some of the Division Benches directed that the appeal should be removed from their Board after it was heard at length for number of days. Similarly, allegations have been made by MSEB and by DSL against each other that what was not argued before the Arbitral Tribunal was argued for the first time in the Petition which was filed under section 34 and new grounds were taken in the present appeal which were never urged before the Arbitral Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge. Submissions have been made by both parties on the interpretation of the order of the Apex Court in appeal filed by MSEB against the order of remand passed by the Division Bench headed by Bilal Nazki, J. These facts indicate that the matter was contested tooth and nail by both the parties, before all forums.

4. We have heard both, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant – MSEB and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of DSL at great length. The matter was initially heard by the Bench of V.M. Kanade & Rais, JJ in April and May, 2013, i.e., before vacation. However, after the vacation, since the Bench was reconstituted, the reconstituted Bench (Coram V.M. Kanade & K.R. Shriram, JJ) again reheard the matter from 19/6/2013 onwards and on daily basis in the afternoon session from 24/6/2013. The submissions made by MSEB and DSL finally concluded on 8/8/2013.

5. We propose to decide this appeal with Notices of Motion taken out therein by DSL and Chamber Summonses filed by MSEB in the following manner:-

1 Brief Synopsis and chronology of events.

2 Remand

3 Submissions and finding on interpretation of the order of Apex Court dated 25/8/2009 passed in SLP filed by MSEB, challeng