R. R. Jain, J. - Rule, Mr. Sanjanwala Waives service of Rule.

2. The dispute relates to execution of a foreign award, in India, under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 (which now has become "Act"). The applicant is a foreign corporate body whereas the opponent is a partnership firm carrying on business in India. It appears that as some disputes arose between the parties, the same were referred to a domestic Tribunal as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950, in force in United Kingdom. The domestic tribunal resolved the disputes and passed award on 25-2-1996 in favour of the applicant for a sum of US $ 1,53,650 (equivalent to Rs. 56,69,685/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-1-1995 till the date of the award. Since the opponent against whom the award operates is carrying on business and is having property within the territory of India, the applicant initiated execution proceedings No. 3 of 1996 in the Court of District Judge, Bhavnagar (Gujarat), India, under Sections 36, 49 and 58 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance' or the "said Act"). After institution, the matter was assigned to the Court of Joint District Judge, Bhavnagar, who, after hearing, issued appropriate process. In response to the process, the opponent appeared and filed objections Ex. 16, challenging maintainability on several grounds. However, the learned Joint District Judge. Bhavnagar, after hearing both the parties, rejected the objections and directed the applicant to take further steps for execution of award.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the opponent has filed this application under Section 115 of the Civil Proceedure Code ('the Code' for short) since the liabilities arise under an award, the petitioner is also referred as "judgment-creditor" and the respondent as "judgment-debtor" hereinafter).

4. This is a very interesting matter wherein as regards facts there is no dispute between the parties. Practically both the parties rely upon the same provisions of law in support of their respective contentions but giving different interpretations, therefore, the only question would be about interpretation of relevant provisions of the Ordinance and its applicability. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting present Ordinance may be of little help for appreciating rival contentions. But, before going to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it would be worthwhile to make a short reference to various enactments relating to arbitral proceedings in India prevailing prior to promulgation of the Ordinance, 1996, Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 relates to domestic arbitral proceedings. It is a consolidated and self-contained Act providing for reference of dispute and appointment of arbitrator, initiation of proceedings, publication of award, procedure for shaping award as decree so as to make it executable, the extent of interference by Court in arbitral proceedings, etc.

5. At the same time, the Arbitration Act, 1940 was silent about foreign awards, its binding nature, enforcement and execution. Therefore, in order to recognise foreign awards and its enforceability, two enactments were in force :

(i) Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 based on the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign arbitral awards executed at New York in the year 1958, and

(ii) Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, based on Geneva Convention making foreign arbitral awards binding to the signatory countries to that award.

Since India was also singatory to both the conventions. Both the Acts were in force in India. By and large, the provisions of Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 and Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 are almost identical. Both these Acts refer to the effect of foreign award, and procedure for execution in India and its recognition as an award passed by domestic tribunal gi