Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—Challenge in this appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (to be referred as the ‘Act’ hereinafter) read with Order XLIII Rule 1 and Section 104 Code of Civil Procedure is to the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 1), Sonebhadra in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2009 filed under Section 34 of the Act in respect of award dated 25.8.2007.

2. At the time of hearing of appeal a preliminary jurisdictional objection was raised on behalf of the appellant contending that the Court of Additional District Judge is not a ‘Court’ within the definition of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act, therefore, it has no jurisdiction to dispose of objections under Section 34 of the Act filed by the appellant before the District Judge, Sonebhadra against the impugned award dated 25.8.2007. In these circumstances, presently we are confined only to this issue and are not dealing with the merits of the case. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on the case of M/s I.T.I. Ltd. Allahabad v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, AIR 1998 All 313. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceding that the view of this Court in the above noted case is contrary to the findings of trial Court has valiantly tried to contend that the Court of Additional District Judge in a district is not inferior to the Court of District Judge and thus the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

3. It is not disputed that the appellant, a Government company engaged in the mining operation for extraction of coal in the States of M. P. and U. P. awarded a contract worth Rs. 29,73,31,100.00 and works & services for Rs. 18,35,59,000.00 to the respondent company for construction of 4-million ton per year capacity Coal Handling Plant at Khadia District Sonebhadra (U.P.) on turn key basis. The contract was. The schedule period of completion of plant was 24-months from the date of handing over the site i.e. 22.11.1993. However, agreed revised date of completion was fixed as 25.6.1994 due to delay in handing over of site by the appellant. Later on by way of mutual agreement the plant was divided in two phases. After completion of both phases it was mutually agreed to conduct the performance guarantee test of total place from 2.3.1998 to 31.3.1998. A committee of officers was constituted and test was completed on 31.3.1998. The committee thereafter recommended to take over the total plant for commercial operation w.e.f. 1.4.1998. The respondent was however, given time to remove short comings and complete balance work within one year i.e. up to 31.3.1999.

4. As per agreement above the balance work/deficiencies which remained unattended within one year may be dealt as per contract on risk and cost of respondent or adjustment of cost price available in the contract. However, due to financial crisis the respondent could not complete the balance work/deficiencies within guarantee period of one year and the appellant decided to take up work on risk and cost of respondent from cost price available in the contract. The appellant also encashed bank guarantee of the respondent and imposed penalty due to delay in completion of work. The respondent approached this Court by way application dated 7.3.2000 for appointment of sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute as per the arbitration clause contained in the contract. Consequently vide order dated 8.2.2001 Justice R. M. Sahai, Former Judge Supreme Court was appointed sole Arbitrator. The parties participated in the arbitration proceedings and the award under Section 31 of the Act was pronounced on 25.8.2007. The operative part of the said award is as under:

(1) The claimant is entitled to reduction of liquidated damages levied by the respondent by 50%.

(2) The claimant shall, further be entitled to the amount found due on recalculation of interest, on extra ordinary advance. The exercise shall be completed within one month from 25.8.2