The Court where the first application in a reference under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is made, has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the holding of the learned subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, that the application for removal of the arbitrator was not entertainable by him, as the appointment was made by the Supreme Court.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had entered into agreement No. 18 F-2 of 1971-72 for execution of the work. "renovation of Madansila M. I. P. " Disputes and differences between the parties having arisen, the petitioner called upon the Chief Engineer. Irrigation, to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. The Chief Engineer having failed to appoint, an application was filed under Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('act' hereafter) for appointment of an arbitrator and the learned subordinate Judge in Misc. Case No. 378 of 1979 appointed Shri B. S. Patnaik, a retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator. Some time later, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 33 of the Act challenging the existence of arbitration agreement and the validity of the arbitration proceeding. The application having been rejected by the learned subordinate Judge in Misc. Case No. 480 of 1980, the matter was brought to this Court in Civil Revision No. 178 of 1981 and this Court dismissed the revision. Civil Appeal No. 564 of 1981 was carried to the Supreme Court. Their Lordships in the said matter appointed the Arbitration Tribunal set up by the State Government in place of Shri B. S. Patnaik to act as the arbitrator. The arbitration proceeding thereafter commenced before the Arbitration Tribunal.

( 3 ) SOME time after the commencement of the arbitration proceeding, the petitioner filed an application before the learned subordinate Judge for removal of the arbitrator--the Arbitration Tribunal. The learned subordinate Judge relying upon Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, AIR 1981 SC 2075, held that inasmuch as the arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition,

( 4 ) MR. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned subordinate Judge misconceived the rule laid down in Guru Nanak's case and in any view of the matter, the ratio of the said case had no application to the facts of the present case. Hs urged that unlike in Guru Nanak's case, the Supreme Court itself did not make a reference nor did it retain control over the present matter nor give any direction to the arbitrator from time to time.

( 5 ) LEARNED Government Advocate appearing for the opposite partiers, on the other hand, contended that Guru Nanak's case laid down that that Court which appointed the arbitrator continued to have seisin over the matter and any subsequent application was to be made to that very Court as provided in Section 31 (4) of the Act.

( 6 ) IN Guru Nanak's case (AIR 1981 SC 2075) differences and disputes having arisen between the parties to the contract, an application was filed in the Delhi High Court under Section 20 of the Act seeking filing of the arbitration agreement and reference of the disputes covered by the agreement to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Court. Shri Nanda, a retired Chief Engineer, was appointed as the sole arbitrator and reference was made to him. While the reference was pending, an application was filed before the Delhi High Court under Sections 5 and 11 of the Act for removal of Shri Nanda. The High Court rejected the application. M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation moved special leave petition before the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of the order of the High Court dismissing its application for removal. At the hearing, by consent of parties, Shri Nanda was removed and Shri C. P. Malik was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The Supreme Court fixed the remuneration of the arbitrator and directed him to commence the proceedings within 15 days and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. When Shri Malik required the parties to file fresh pleadings, on an applicatio