JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pradip Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1996’) laying challenge to the award dated 26.03.2022 passed by Sri J.P. Narayan, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Rtd.), sole Arbitrator.

3. The Stamp Reporter has made a report that the present application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is not maintainable in view of the order passed in Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 01 of 2018.

4. Sri P.K. Srivastva, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, while addressing on the maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, submitted that the word “Court” used in Section 34 read with Section 2 (1) (e) (i) means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. According to learned counsel, both the Principal Civil Court and the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

5. He has placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Executive Engineer, Road Development Division No. III, Panvel Vs. Atlanta Limited, 2014 AIR (SC) 1093.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material on record.

7. The sole question which has to be adjudicated is in regard to maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before this Court against the arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator.

8. Before adverting to decide the issue in hand a cursory glance of provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) (i) and Section 34 of the Act of 1996 are necessary for better appreciation of the case, thus, both the provisions are extracted here as under;

“2. Definitions.—(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—

[(e) “Court” means—

(i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;

……….

34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).

(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if—

(a) the party making the application 1[establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that]—

(i) a party was under some incapacity, or

(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or

(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or

(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:

Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or

(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or

(b) the Court finds that—

(