M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.9.2000 passed by Subordinate Judge I, Saraikella in Misc. Case No. 2/2000 thereby and whereunder he has allowed the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and by temporary injunction restrained the appellant- Board from enforcing the award and further restrained the appellant-Board to disconnect the supply of electricity to the factory premises of the respondent till the disposal of the application filed under Section 34 of the said Act.

2. The relevant facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

3. The respondent-M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. is High Tension Consumer of the appellant-Bihar State Electricity Board. In 1996, an inspection in the premises of the petitioner was conducted and it was alleged that the respondent was indulging in theft and misuse of electricity. On the basis of inspection report, a bill was raised on 4.4.1996 for Rs. 11,42,34,683.71 paise. The respondent-M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. challenged the bill before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1388/96(R). The said writ application was allowed in terms of order dated 10.7.1996 and the bill was set aside with certain direction to the appellant-Board. The Board being aggrieved by the said order, moved the Division Bench by filing appeal being LPA No. 172/96 (R). The Division Bench by judgment dated 28.7.1997 disposed of the appeal holding that the impugned bill was covered under clause 6(b) of the Tariff framed by the Board. However, the Division Bench gave a direction for determination of the question involved, as it was necessary to decide the controversy between the Board and the consumer on the question of methodology adopted by the Board in determining the actual capacity of the electricity by the respondent-consumer. Accordingly, as agreed by the parties, the Division Bench appointed the following persons as the Board of Arbitrators and referred the matter for adjudication : "(i) Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Retired Judge of the Supreme --Chairman. (ii) Director, National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi. --Member. (iii) Head of the Department of Metallurgical Engineering. IIT, New Delhi. --Member."

4. In the said judgment, a time-limit of six months was fixed for giving the award and it was directed that if any amount is found payable by the consumer under the award, the same would be paid in four monthly equal instalments within the period to be fixed by the Board of Arbitrators. The respondent moved the Supreme Court against the said judgment in SLP (C) No. 15482/97. The said special leave was granted and the appeal was allowed by order dated 15.12.1997. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court insofar as they have decided the issues referring the applicability of Clause 6(b) and (g) of the Tariff and Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Their Lordships, however, referred the matter to the Board of Arbitrators consisting of following persons for deciding all the issues :-- "(i) Honble Mr. Justice E.P. Jeevan Reddy, (Retd.) --Chairman. (ii) The Director of National Physical Laboratory or his nominee (who shall be a Senior Scientist). --Member. (iii) A Metallurgist holding the rank of Professor to be nominated by the Head of the Department of Applied Mechanics, IIT, New Delhi. --Member."

5. In terms of the Supreme Court order, the Board of Arbitrators gave their award on 2.5.2000 and in the said award, the respondent-consumer was held responsible for payment of Rs. 6,34,00,000 and it was directed that the said amount shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,58,50,000/-. The date of payment of the first instalment was on or before 1.8.2000, the second instalment on or before 1.11.2000, the third instalment on or before 1.2.2001 and the fourth and last instalment on or before 1.5.2001. The Board of Arbitrators also made it clear that if the amount o