The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Principal Subordinate Judge lacked inherent jurisdiction to deal with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as the Act specifies that only the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, namely, the District Court or the District Judge, has jurisdiction in such matters and not a Subordinate Judge.

P.K. Misra, J.

1. TheState Government has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in O.P. No. 22 of 1998 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The facts, so far as necessary for the decision in the present appeal, are as follows:

On 21.7.1995, there was an agreement executed between the State Government and the contractor (present Respondent No. 1) relating to the work of strengthening of Periyar Dam. Such work commenced on 9.8.1995. However, on 22.11.1995, the officials of the Forest Department of the Kerala Government stopped quarrying work done by the contractor and thereafter the earthwork was also stopped in December. The State of Tamil Nadu identified a fresh place for quarrying about 67 kms. away from the worksite at Periyar Dam and thereafter the work resumed on 8.1.1997. Thereafter, the work was again stopped on 6.2.1997 and the contractor moved the High Court of Kerala and after intervention of the Judiciary, the work resumed on 24.5.1997. Even before the work was resumed, the contractor had made a claim towards compensation for loss of idle machinery and labour and as per the contract, a Superintending Engineer was nominated on 7.5.1997 to resolve. On 30.6.1997, the Adjudicator passed an order directing payment of Rs.93,09,575 as compensation towards loss of idle machinery and labour between the period 21.11.1995 and 8.1.1997. However, neither the Department nor the contractor accepted such determination by the Adjudicator and as per the provisions of the contract, a Superintending Engineer was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the Department. Such arbitrator passed an award dated 19.1.1998 awarding a total sum of Rs.l,49,98,396 as compensation. Thereafter, the State Government filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, which was numbered as O.P. No. 22 of 1998. The Principal Sub-Court, under the impugned judgment dated 11.12.2000, confirmed the award. Such a decision is under challenge in the present appeal.

3. During pendency of such appeal, C.M.P. No. 22390 of 2001 has been filed by the appellant seeking permission to raise an additional ground. The contention raised in such petition is to the effect that the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai had no jurisdiction to deal with the petition filed by the State Government challenging the validity of the award under Section 34 of the Act. It is contended that even though such petition had been filed by the State Government before the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, in view of the provisions contained in the Act, such Court did not have any jurisdiction and such petition was to be filed before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction of the district, namely, the District Judge, and not the Subordinate Judge. It is therefore contended that the Court below had inherent lack of jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, therefore, the decision of the Court below is liable to be set aside.

4. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the said, contention has been pressed into service. It has been further contended that in case the aforesaid submission is not accepted, the contentions raised in the appeal on merit may be considered.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the contractor/Respondent No. l has submitted that the petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed by the State Government before the Sub-Court and, therefore, it is not open to the appellants to turn around and now contend that such a proceeding was not maintainable. Learned counsel has also submitted that the judgment passed by the Sub-Court does not suffer from any error or illegality and, therefore, such order should be confirmed on merit. Learned counsel has also submitted that it cannot be said that the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, did not have any inherent jurisdiction to deal wi