RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J (ORAL)

1. The execution petition 234/2008 has been filed for execution of the arbitral award dated 16th January, 2008 and in para 7 of the execution application “amount of suit alongwith interest as per decree or any other relief granted by the decree” is stated to be Rs 15,80,833.61 with interest at 18 % per annum from 2nd July, 2008 till the date of realization of the amount. The arbitral award is engrossed on stamp paper of Rs 500/-.

2. Execution petition 235/2008 has been filed for execution of an arbitral award dated 20th December, 2007. In para 7 of the application the “amount of suit alongwith interest as per decree or any other relief granted by the decree” is stated to be Rs 19,02,725/- with interest at 18% per annum from 2nd July, 2008 till the date of realisation of the amount. The arbitral award is engrossed on stamp paper of Rs 800/-.

.3. Both the execution petitions came up before the court first on 1st July, 2008. It was pointed out to the counsel for the decree holder that since the amount in both the executions is less than Rs 20 lacs, the execution petitions would not lie before this court and would lie before the District Court. It was further pointed out that the award did not appear to be duly stamped. The counsel sought time to satisfy on the two aspects.

4. The counsel for the decree holders has sought to justify the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the execution petitions for the reason of this court, in both the cases having exercised the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and further for the reason of this court having again exercised jurisdiction (again in both the cases) under Section 15(2) of the Act for substituting the arbitrator appointed earlier. The counsel for the decree holders has submitted that since the petitions under Sections 11(6) and 15(2) of the Act had been made to this court, under Section 42 of the Act, notwithstanding the value of the pecuniary jurisdiction in both the cases being below the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, this court would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the execution applications. Reliance in this regard was placed on a judgment of a single Bench of this court in Damayanti Builders v Union of India reported as 2003 (3) Arb. LR 530. Undoubtedly it was held in the said judgment that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act would lie before this court only, for the reason of this court having exercised jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on certain observations to the same effect in order dated 13.12.2004 of another Single Bench of this court in OMP 418/2004.

5. However, I find that the aforesaid judgment of the Single Judge of this court is no longer good law. A contrary view has been taken by the Apex Court in Rodemadan India Ltd v International Trade Expo Centre Ltd (2006) 11 SCC 651. It was held in the said judgment in para 8 that the power under Section 11(6) of the Act is the power of a designate referred to under the section and not that of the (Supreme) Court, albeit that it has now been held to have judicial characteristics by reason of the judgment in SBP & Co v Patel Engg Ltd (2005) 8 SCC 618. It was further held in para 25 of the judgment that neither the Chief Justice nor his designate under Section 11(6) is a “Court” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and further that the bar of jurisdiction under Section 42 is only intended to apply to a “court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e).

6. The said judgment of the Apex Court was followed by another Single Judge of this Court in Union of India v S.R. Constructions Company and Another 144(2007) DLT 580 and it was held that the mere passing of an order under Section 11(6) of the Act by this court would not vest this court with the exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act to entertain the objections under Section 34 of the Act, if ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document