D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.- The only common question that arises for consideration in these two appeals is as to whether the provisions of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 constitutes a bar on the jurisdiction of a Civil Court for making an award of an Arbitrator a rule of the Court or a decree of the Court in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, subsequent to 30-11-1994, from which date onwards the Recovery of Debts Due to banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has come into effect.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the above two appeals are: The appellants herein M.F.A. Nos. 871 and 874 of 1995 were borrowers of certain amounts from the first respondent-bank. The lending of the money by the bank in favour of the appellants was covered by an agreement between the parties, which inter alia provided for reference to an Arbitrator, if dispute arises between the parties in the matter of repayment of the borrowed amounts.

3. Dispute having ultimately arisen between the parties in the matter of repayment, an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement between the parties and one Sri P.N