Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to all applications made before or during the arbitral proceedings or after an Award is pronounced under Part I of the Arbitration Act. If the first application is made to a Court which is neither the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, or a High Court exercising original jurisdiction, such an application not being to a Court as defined, would be outside the purview of Section 42. Also an application made to a Court without subject-matter jurisdiction would be outside the purview of Section 42.

JUDGMENT

B P Colabawalla, J. - The present Arbitration Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the "Arbitration Act") challenging the Award dated 4th August, 2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

2. At the very outset, respondent No.1 has taken a preliminary objection that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Respondent No.1 has urged that before the petition be entertained on merits, the issue of jurisdiction of this Court be decided first.

3. In order to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, it would be necessary to set out some brief facts. The arbitration clause in the loan agreement executed between the parties reads as under:-

"In the event of any dispute or differences arising under this Agreement including any dispute as to any amount outgoing, the real meaning or purport thereof ("Dispute"), such Dispute shall be finally resolved by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendment or re-enactment thereof by a single arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender. The venue of arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the arbitration shall be conducted in English language".

(Emphasis Supplied.)

4. Since disputes arose between the parties, arbitral proceedings were instituted at New Delhi and which culminated into an Arbitral Award dated 30th January, 2013 (for short the "First Arbitral Award") in favour of respondent No.1. This First Arbitral Award was passed at New Delhi.

5. This First Arbitral Award was challenged by the petitioners herein before this Court by filing Arbitration Petition No. 427 of 2013 [the earlier Section 34 petition] under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In the said petition, respondent No.1 appeared on six occasions before this Court [as recorded in paragraph 3 of the judgment of this Court dated 17th August, 2015]. Despite respondent No.1 appearing on several occasions, it did not object to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to decide the said petition. Finally, the First Arbitral Award was set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17th August, 2015.

6. Respondent No.1 accepted this order and did not challenge the same or file any application for review or modification thereof. It, in fact, acted in furtherance thereto and initiated fresh arbitration proceedings by nominating respondent No.2 as the Sole Arbitrator on 9th February, 2018. On 9th March, 2019 the Sole Arbitrator issued a disclosure statement under the Arbitration Act. It is the case of the petitioners that though the Sole Arbitrator disclosed that he had been an Arbitrator in 500 arbitrations for various Financial Institutions, he did not disclose whether he had served as an Arbitrator in any matter concerning the 1st respondent - bank. It is also the case of the petitioners that they applied to the Sole Arbitrator on several occasions for receiving copies of the papers and proceedings in the arbitration, but without any success. Apart from the Statement of Claim, nothing was served on the petitioner. This, of course, is not germane for me to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by respondent No.1. Be that as it may, the Arbitral Tribunal thereafter passed a fresh Award on 3rd August, 2019 (for short the "Second Arbitral Award"). This arbitration also took place at New Delhi and the Second Arbitral Award was also passed at New Delhi. It is the Second Arbitral Award that is challenged in the present petition.

7. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, submitted that the "seat" of arbitration, as designated by the parties, is admittedly New Delhi and the petitioners do not even dispute that the "seat" of the Arbitral Tribunal is at New Delhi. He submitted that now it is well settled that once a "seat"