ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

The point for determination in these Appeals is whether the Master of this Court under the Madras High Court Original Side Rules is a Court for the purpose of enforcement of foreign awards both under the New York convention as well as Geneva convention. This issue has led us to deal with the functions of the Master under the Letters patent and the Madras High Court Original Side Rules. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (in short “Act, 1996”), provisions for enforcement of foreign arbitral award is contained in Part II. Sections 44 to 52 of the Act, 1996 deals with enforcement of foreign awards under the New York convention and Sections 53 to 60 deals with enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Geneva convention. A foreign arbitral award made on or after 11th October 1960 is a New York convention award and a foreign arbitral award made after 28th July 1924 and not being an Award passed under the New York convention is a Geneva convention Award.

2. In the instant case, we are dealing with a foreign arbitral award which is a New York convention award. There seems to be disputes between the respondent and the Appellant and a foreign arbitral award dated 23.07.2015 came to be passed in favour of the respondent against the Appellant in ICDR Case No.50-20-1300-1133 by an Arbitrator Mr.Paul E.Burns at California, USA for a sum of US $1,38,182.88 equivalent to Indian Currency of Rs.88,16,068/- calculated at the exchange rate of Rs.63.80 per US $1 as on 23.07.2015. The respondent filed an execution petition E.P.No.17 of 2017 before the learned Master of this Court under Order XXI Rule 11A read with Rule 37(1) and (2) of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 337 of the Companies Act, 2013 to execute the foreign arbitral award dated 23.07.2015 against the Appellant by arrest of the Managing Director or any other Director of the Board of Directors of the Appellant for being imprisoned in a civil prison within the jurisdiction of this Court for failure to pay the Appellant the amount awarded under the foreign arbitral award. A counter was also filed by the Appellant in E.P.No.17 of 2017 wherein they have stated that an execution petition is not maintainable under Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure before the Master as it is well settled that before effective steps are taken for the execution of the foreign award, the parties seeking to enforce the award under New York Convention has to proceed in accordance with sections 47 to 49 of the Act, 1996. It is also contended in the counter that the learned Master under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules can only deal with the matters enumerated in Order XIV Rule 10 of the Original Side Rules and since enforcement of foreign award is not one of the matters enumerated in Order XIV Rule 10, the learned Master lacks the inherent jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition for enforcement of foreign awards. The respondent also filed its rejoinder to the counter filed by the Appellant in E.P.No.17 of 2017 reiterating that the Master has got the jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition seeking to execute the foreign arbitral award passed in their favour. The learned Master by his Order dated 14.12.2017 in E.P.No.17 of 2017 held that the execution petition filed by the respondent to enforce the foreign arbitral award before him is maintainable and the foreign award is enforceable.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Master, the Appellant filed Application Nos.1633 & 1634 of 2018 before the learned Single Judge of this Court reiterating that the execution petition filed by the respondent in E.P.No.17 of 2017 before the learned Master to execute the foreign arbitral award dated 23.07.2017 passed against the Appellant is not maintainable as it is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1996 and Original Side Rules. A common counter was also filed by the respondent in Application Nos.1633 and 1634 of 2018 filed