The High Court's appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) does not grant it jurisdiction over objections to the arbitral award under Section 34; objections must be heard in the proper principal civil court.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Background of the case A dispute arose between Sh. Kashmir Singh, a Government Contractor and the Telecom Department in relation to two works awarded to him in Division Mandi Himachal Pradesh. Sh. Kashmir Singh moved two Arbitration Case Nos. 37 & 38 of 2019 under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’) for appointment of arbitrator. Considering total value of claim in both cases at around Rs. 11 lacs, a learned Advocate was appointed as arbitrator for deciding both the claims. The arbitrator entered into the references and passed separate awards in two cases on 11.11.2022 directing the Telecom Department topay Rs. 4,40,521/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition in one claim and Rs. 2,26,554/- in the other alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. Respondents were also directed to refund the security amount within 30 days failing which interest @ 6% p.a. was chargeable. Sh. Kashmir Singh filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Mandi. Learned District Judge considered the provisions of Section 2 (1)(e), Section 11 & Section 42 of the Act, judicial precedents of various Hon’ble High Courts & Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that arbitrator was appointed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which is vested with original civil jurisdiction, therefore, it will fall within the definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2 (i)(e), hence by virtue of Section 42 of the Act, all subsequent applications are required to be filed before the High Court and not before the District Court. Accordingly learned District Judge held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the objections filed by Sh. Kashmir Singh. Objections were ordered to be returned to him for presentation before the appropriate Court i.e. this Court. Learned District Judge had also observed that all arbitration proceedings were conducted at Shimla, therefore, the District Judge Mandi will have no jurisdiction to entertain the objections.

Consequently, these objections i.e. Arbitration Case Nos.582 & 583 of 2023 have been filed by Sh. Kashmir Singh under Section 34 of the Act challenging the awards passed by the learned arbitrator on 11.11.2022. Counter Arbitration Case Nos. 581 & 584 of 2023 have been filed by the Telecom Department assailing the same awards passed by the learned arbitrator.

2. The Point involved Before embarking upon merits of the objections, the first question that needs addressing is: Whether upon appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Act by the High Court more particularly where the High Court also exercises original civil jurisdiction, the objections against the award are to be filed before the High Court or the District Judge.

In the instant case, applications under Section 11 (6) of the Act were moved by Sh. Kashmir Singh in this Court seeking appointment of arbitrator in Arbitration Case Nos. 37 & 38 of 2019. Sole arbitrator was appointed by the High Court on 02.08.2019. So whether the High Court which also exercises original civil jurisdiction has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain objections under Section 34 of the Act, is the point to be delved upon. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard accordingly.

2(i). Legal Provisions Sections 42 , 2(1)(e) & 11 of the Act have bearing on the question concerned:-

2(i)(a) “42. Jurisdiction. – Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with r