The court affirms that Additional District Judges have jurisdiction to handle arbitration awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, broadening the interpretation of 'Court' within this context.

1. This suo motu petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is a reference made to the Full Bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on a request made by the District & Sessions Judge, Durg, in its memo dated 5-3-2018 to the effect that 859 Arbitration Cases are pending before the District & Sessions Judge i.e., the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction which cannot be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge(s) functioning within his jurisdiction in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Sarin Construction Company , Raipur (AIR 2006 Chh 12), therefore, requesting the High Court to issue guidelines for transfer of the pending Arbitration cases.

2. Hon' ble the Chief Justice has, therefore, exercised the power under R.28(3) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 to place the following issue for consideration before the Full Bench :

' Whether applications for execution of Arbitration Awards under S.36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and other applications under that Act which could lie before the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction can be considered by any of the District Judges or Additional District Judges of that Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction ?'

3. On 16-4-2018 we took up the matter for consideration and appointed Dr. N.K. Shukla and Shri Pramod Verma, both learned Senior Advocates and Shri Prafull N. Bharat and Shri Sunil Otwani, both learned Advocates to assist this Court as amicus curiae, who argued the matter at length on different dates.

4. Referring to various provisions contained under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996'), the Chhattisgarh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (for short ' the Act, 1958'), the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short ' the Act, 1897') and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC'), learned amicus curiae have argued that the majority of the judicial pronouncements by different High Courts have taken the view that the Court of Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction would include the Court of ADJ.

5. Submissions :

Dr. N.K. Shukla and Shri Pramod Verma, learned senior Advocates, Shri Prafull N. Bharat and Shri Sunil Otwani, learned Advocates appearing as amicus curiae would place reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts and also referred to the statutory provisions.

6. Learned amicus curiae have argued that in the matter of M/s. Sarin Construction Company (AIR 2006 Chh 12) (supra), the single Bench of this Court has relied on the judgments rendered by the Allahabad High Court in M/s I.TI. Ltd. Allahabad and others v. District Judge, Allahabad and others (AIR 1998 All 313) and the single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Vinod Kumar Jajodia and others v. Brij Bhushan Agarwal (1993 MPLJ 603), however, both the matters were on different points. According to them, High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala have taken the view that the Court of District Judge includes the Court of ADJ whereas the High Courts of Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have taken the view that the Court of Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction would mean the Court of District Judge only and does not include the Court of Additional District Judge.

7. Learned amicus curiae would emphatically submit that the matter is now set at rest by the Supreme Court in its very recent judgment in the mat