DIPAK MISRA, J. :- The spinal and centroidal issue that has spiralled to this Court for the purpose of adjudication in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India is whether the Additional District Judge has the inherent jurisdiction to hear the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Act') in view of the language employed under Sections 2(1)(e) and 42 of the said enactment or it is the District Judge alone who has the jurisdiction to deal with the lis.

2. The facts which are absolutely imperative to be exposited for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy are that four agreements were signed between the petitioners, namely, Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Company Limited and the respondents on the basis of a letter of intent issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 on 11-5-1999. In pursuance of the execution of the agreement, the respondent No. 1 had submitted the bank guarantees for obtaining advance payment and accordingly, a letter of credit was issued. As some disputes arose, the petitioners encashed the bank guarante