Objections regarding the validity of the award must appear on the face of the record and cannot be left to be determined by a long drawn process of evidence or reasoning.

RANJAN GOGOI, J. :- This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 21-10-98 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Money Execution Case No. 6 of 1998. By the aforementioned order, the learned Court below has rejected the application for execution of an interim award dated 23-2-1998 filed by the present petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case may be noted as hereunder :

The revision petitioner herein contends that to resolve and settle a dispute with regard to the entitlement of the present petitioner to certain outstanding dues, the parties to the present revision petition had agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, pursuant whereto, the revision petitioner, had appointed one Sri S. K. Jain as its Arbitrator. The Managing Director of the respondent-Board by letter dated 12-12-1996 appointed one Sri K. D. Lahkar as its Arbitrator and both the Arbitrators appointed one Sri Jatin Hazarika, IAS (Retired) as the umpire. According to the revision petitioner, the arbitral Tribunal as constituted above entered into the reference of the dispute between the parties and the respondent-Board had time and again sought for and was granted adjournments to enable it to file its reply to the claims made by the present revision petitioner. Consequent upon appointment of a new Managing Director of the Respondent-Board, for the first time, in the proceeding held by the Tribunal on 27-8-97, a question was raised with regard to the competence and jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal to hear the dispute. Such objections to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was taken by the respondent-Board, inter alia, on the ground that the contract agreement between the parties did not visualize any reference to arbitration and that the then Managing Director of the Board had unauthorisedly appointed Sri K. D. Lahkar as its arbitrator. According to the revision petitioner several adjournments were granted at the instance of the respondent Board to enable it to place before the Tribunal the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the dispute which opinion was stated to have been sought for. Eventually, as the aforesaid opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was not placed before the Tribunal in spite of grant of several opportunities and as no written statement was also filed on behalf of the respondent Board, the arbitral Tribunal in a sitting held on 23-2-98, while keeping the question of jurisdiction alive and pending passed an interim award in favour of the claimant revision petitioner for a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs to be paid by the respondent-Board against a Bank guarantee to be furnished by the revision petitioner herein.

3. According to the revision petitioner, the said interim award was not challenged by the respondent-Board by filing an application for setting aside the same as contemplated by Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On expiry of the period of limitation for filing such an application as prescribed by Section 34 of the Act, the revision petitioner filed an application for execution of the award, on the basis of which Money Execution Case No. 5 of 1998, was registered in the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. The respondent-Board filed its objections against the said execution contending primarily that the award was a nullity in law and therefore, not executable. By the impugned order dated 21-10-98 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, the application for execution filed by the claimant-revision-petitioner having been dismissed, the instant civil revision application has been filed.

4. We have heard Mr. T. C. Markanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Board.

Mr. Markanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner has contended that under Secti