K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The primary question that has come up for consideration -in this case is whether the petition filed by the respondent Corporation under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Arbitration Act) is maintainable before the District Court, Ernakulam M.F.A.892/01 is preferred by the first respondent in Arbitration O.P. 86/01 and M.F.A.996/01 is preferred by the petitioner in Arbitration O. P. 86/01. Arbitration O.P. was filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Arbitration Act for a prohibitory order restraining the second respondent from making any payments to the first respondent under the annual dredging contract for the year 2000-2001 and also for other consequential reliefs.

2. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of these cases are as follows: We may describe the parties according to their status in the Arbitration O.P. Second respondent invited tenders for awarding the work of dredging for maintenance of channels at Cochin Port for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (optional) for an approximate quantity of 13 million cubic metres of in-situ materials consisting of clay, silt and sand from Port's