JUDGMENT :

J.Nisha Banu, N.Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 04.08.2010 made in A.O.P.No.127 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.

This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the “Act”) against the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi in A.O.P.No.127 of 2006, dated 04.08.2010, under Section 34 of the Act, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant challenging the Award passed by the Arbitrator on 16.03.2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as the Handling Agent for the 1st respondent Company for export of wheat from Thoothukudi Port through an Agreement dated 01.12.2000. Under the agreement, the appellant was appointed to work as Cargo Handling Agent for the 1st respondent as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The further case of the appellant is that under the Agreement, the appellant was expected to receive wheat on behalf of the 1st respondent from FCI godown at Thoothukudi and transport it by trucks to Thoothukudi Port which involves loading the goods into vessels at the specified loading rates. According to the appellant, it is the duty and responsibility of the 1st respondent to supply goods as well as to arrange for vessels.

3. In the course of fulfilling the terms of Contract, the appellant had to hire godowns for storage of goods and according to the appellant, the activity of providing for storage godowns to store goods was not contemplated under the Agreement and it did not fall within the scope of the work agreed under the Agreement. However, the appellant took it as an additional work and hired godowns on behalf of the 1st respondent. Initially, when the appellant raised bills for such storage rental charges during February/March, 2001, the 1st respondent paid for it. However, subsequently, the 1st respondent declined to pay such storage rental charges.

4. The further case of the appellant is that the appellant entered into a similar Contract with the 1st respondent Company's branch at Bangalore on an identical Agreement and the entire storage charges/godown rent was paid to the appellant. In view of the same, the appellant was insisting for the payment of the storage rental charges from the respondent and the respondent refused to pay the same. This resulted in a dispute.

5. The appellant therefore invoked the arbitration clause provided under the Agreement. The arbitration was conducted by the 2nd respondent and through an Award dated 16.03.2006, dismissed the claim. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a petition in A.O.P.No.127 of 2006 under Section 34 of the Act before the District Court. When the petition was pending, the appellant filed I.A.No.206 of 2007 under Section 34 (4) of the Act, seeking for remitting the Award back to the Arbitrator so as to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the Award. The District Court by an order dated 03.02.2008, allowed the application and remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for fresh consideration and fixed a time limit for the completion of the proceedings and till then, kept the Award already passed in abeyance.

6. Aggrieved by the above order, a Civil Revision Petition came to be filed before this Court in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.806 of 2008. This Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition to a limited extent, modifying the order of the District Court to the following effect:

(a) The Arbitration O.P.No.127 of 2006 shall stand adjourned for a period of 3 months with effect from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) It is now open to the Arbitrator (second respondent) either to resume the proceedings or to take such other action, as in his considered opin