Honble SHARMA, J.–Common question that cropped up for consideration in all the three revisions, is whether the District Judge designated by the Chief Justice, as ``authority to deal with the request for taking necessary measures under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, is subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) for making its order revisable under Section 115 CPC ?

(2). The question arises in the following circumstances–

(i) In connection with the contract works certain dispute arose between the Union of India and the contractor non- petitioners. Thereafter claims were referred to the Arbitrator. While the proceedings were in progress before the Arbitrator, the Contractor non-petitioners submitted applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the New Act) before the District Judge Jodhpur praying therein that the scope of Arbitration be expanded with a direction to the Arbitrator to take cognizance of all the claims.

(ii) The learned District Judge Jodhpur vide order dated December 19, 1997 allowed the application and issued directions that claims referred in the application shall also be referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication who shall give his award within a period of four months.

(iii) The Union of India and other petitioners have assailed the said order of the learned Dist. Judge by filing the instant revisions under Sec.115 CPC.

(iv) Preliminary objection was raised by Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the contractor non-petitioners (for short the contractors) in respect of maintainability of the revision petitions. It was vehemently contended that the learned District Judge appointed under sub-section (6) of Sec.11 of the New Act is a persona designata and his orders can not be revised under Sec.115 CPC by the High Court. On the other hand Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the Union of India canvassed that the orders of District Judge are revisable under Sec.115 CPC.

(3). Before I deal with the rival submissions in detail, it will be useful to examine the relevant statutory provisions. For application of section 115 CPC it is necessary that order impugned should be an order of a Court subordinate to the High Court. According to section 3 CPC the District Court is subordinate to the High Court. Therefore in order to adjudge whether District Judge acts as a court or as a persona designata, the entire scheme of the New Act shall have to be looked into.

(4). An Arbitration and Conciliation Bill XXX-C of 1995 received the Presidents assent on August 16, 1996 and was notified on August 19, 1996 as No. 55 in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II, Section 1 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came into force on the from August 22, 1996. While introducing the Bill its main objectives were shown as under–

(i) to comprehensively cover international commercial arbitration and conciliation as also domestic arbitration and conciliation;

(ii) to make provision for an Arbitrator procedure which is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of the specific Arbitrations;

(iii) to provide that the arbitral tribunal gives reasons for its arbitral award;

(iv) to ensure that the arbitral tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction;

(v) to minimize the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process;

(vi) to permit an arbitral tribunals to use meditation, conciliation or other procedures during the arbitral proceedings to encourage settlement of disputes;

(vii) to provide that every final arbitral award is enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court;

(viii) to provide that a settlement agreement reached by the parties as a result of conciliation proceedings will have the same status and effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms on the substance of the dispute rendered by an arbitral tribunal; and

(ix) to provide that, for purposes of enforcement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document