A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The facts leading to this reference to the Full Bench are that the respondent no. 1 in Writ Petition Nos. 6066 of 2012 and 4682 of 2012 being the decree holder initiated execution proceedings under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for sake of brevity “the Act of 1996”) for enforcement of the foreign Award dated 29th March, 2001. The learned Principal District Judge assigned this matter to District Judge-10 in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869 (for sake of brevity “the Act of 1869”). The Petitioners-judgment debtors took the stand that in view of provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act of 1996, the proceedings could not have been so transferred and the execution proceedings ought to have been prosecuted in the Court of Principal District Judge himself. The objection in that regard was rejected on 21st August, 2012 which is the subject-matter of challenge in both the Writ Petitions. When the Writ Petitions were pending before the learned Single Judge, they were amended for challenging Office Order dated 17th November, 2011 whereby the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, issued directions in exercise of powers under Sections 38 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for sake of brevity “the Code”) and allocated execution applications filed for executing Awards passed under the provisions of the Act 1996 to various District Judges mentioned therein. The aforesaid Writ Petitions were, therefore, placed before the Division Bench.

2. While considering the challenge to the aforesaid Office Order dated 17th November, 2011, the Division Bench referred to the judgment of the Full Bench in Fountain Head Developers vs. Maria Arcangela Sequeria through legal heirs, 2007 (3) Mh. L.J. 744 (FB) and observed that the District Judge (now the Principal District Judge) was found to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction by the Full Bench. The Division Bench then considered the judgment in Akola Janta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Raju Natthuji Badhe, 2001 (2) Mh. L.J. 427 rendered by another Division Bench. It noted that the Division Bench in Akola Janta Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) had held that the Award has to be treated as a decree passed by the District Judge which may be executed either by the District Judge himself or by any Court to which it is sent by such District Judge. It was further observed that when the judgment of the Full Bench in Fountain Head Developers (supra) was read in the backdrop of the aforesaid observations, the words “including a subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction” militate with the concept of principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as expounded therein. It was further observed that the provisions of Section 39 (1) of the Code cannot be construed independently of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act of 1996 and a Court subordinate to the Court of District Judge (the Court of Principal District Judge) cannot be recognized as Court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcement of Awards under the Act of 1996. On that premise, the Division Bench in Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. and Others, Writ Petition No. 6606 of 2012 found itself not in a position to concur with the judgment of the Division Bench in Akola Janta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra). In paragraph 14 of its order dated 01st March, 2013, it observed as under:-

“The issue is whether Office Order No. A-1 (3)/43/B/2011 dated 17th November, 2011 by the Principal District Judge, Nagpur transferring the execution of award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the Courts of Additional District Judges (District Judge-3, District Judge-4 etc.) is in consonance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

The papers were accordingly placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice who has been pleased to constitute this Benc