BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

The present petition has been filed, inter alia, for enforcement of the foreign award dated 10.11.2003 passed by the sole arbitrator Mr. Samuel A. Houbold Asq. at London, U.K. in ICC Case No. 11881/MS. It is also prayed that the order dated 31.05.2005 passed by Ms. Shailender Kaur, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Ex. No. 19/2004 be set aside and that the proceedings pending before the court of the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu be stayed.

At the outset it must be made clear that the prayers with regard to setting aside the said order of 31.05.2005 and staying of the proceedings before the district court at Tiruchirapalli cannot be allowed. The former, because this is not an appeal from the said order dated 31.05.2005 and, the latter, because the district court at Tiruchirapalli does not fall within the jurisdiction of this High Court. Thus this petition is to be considered purely from the standpoint of whether the foreign award can be enforced by this court.

Under the foreign award dated 10.11.2003 the judgment debtor/respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner/decree holder - (1) US $ 36,584.74 plus 4% interest with effect from 01.11.1999 till date of payment; and (2) - 14,484.70 plus US $ 21,000 plus 4% interest on both the sums from 10.11.2003 (date of award) till date of full payment.

The respondent has raised three preliminary objections to the maintainability of the present petition. Firstly, the respondent contends that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as a similar petition being Ex. No. 19/2004 is pending before the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. Secondly, this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition inasmuch as the award amount is less than Rs. 20,00,000. Thirdly, the respondent/judgment debtor has already filed objections to the said award in the district court at Tiruchirapalli. Therefore, in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

The petitioner/decree holder has responded to each of these contentions. It is the case of the petitioner/decree holder that there is no bar to the filing of a second execution application. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner/decree holder that the award amount was more than Rs. 20,00,000 and, therefore, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner/decree holder that Section 42 of the said Act falls in Part-I thereof, whereas foreign awards are governed by Part-II. Therefore, Section 42 would have no applicability insofar as the present case is concerned, it being a case involving a foreign award.

Before I embark upon a discussion of the relative merits and demerits of the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties, it would be pertinent to note a few dates. As stated above, the award, in question, was made on 10.11.2003 in U.K. On 16.07.2004, the decree holder/petitioner filed an application for enforcement of the foreign award in this court (Delhi High Court). The same was returned by the Registry of this court to the petitioner on account of the fact that the value of the award was less than Rs. 20,00,000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the execution petition in the district court. The said execution petition was numbered as Ex. No. 19/2004 and is pending before the court of Ms. Shailender Kaur, Additional District Judge, Delhi. On 19.11.2004, the respondent/judgment debtor moved an application under Section 42 of the said Act in the said petition (Ex. No. 19/2004) on the ground that the respondent/judgment debtor had already filed an application for setting aside the award, in question, in the district court at Tiruchirapalli, Dalmiya Puram, Tamil Nadu. In the said application, it was also contended that the court of t