The Supreme Court determined that only the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction has jurisdiction to entertain challenges to awards by arbitrators appointed by the Court under the Arbitration Act.

1. These applications have been filed by the respondent - applicant namely M/s. Krishna Travel Agency in a matter disposed of by this Court on 17.12.2004 for the following directions:
(i) to withdraw the objections and reply thereto filed by the parties being suit No. 232 of 2005 against the award dated 27.10.2005 in the court of learned District Judge, Dehradun and to decide the objections and in alternative;
(ii) direct the learned District Judge, Dehradun to decide the objections being suit No. 232 of 2005 within a period of 3 months from the date of the order.

2. In order to dispose of these IA Nos. 1 & 2, it may be relevant to refer to a few facts. A dispute arose between the applicant and the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. with regard to conducting tours and certain payments being not made. Therefore, the matter was taken by M/s. Krishna Travel Agency, respondent - applicant before a competent Court. Ultimately, the matter reached this Court and this Court by the order dated 17.12.2004 appointed Shri V.A. Mohta, Sr. Adv., as arbitrator in the Special Leave Petition with the consent of both the parties. Shri Mohta gave the award on 27.10.2005. That award was filed before the District Judge, Dehradun and an application under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 was filed for setting aside that award. The matter is pending before the District Judge, Dehradun and during its pendency, these applications have been filed by M/s. Krishna Travel Agency for certain directions in which the aforesaid prayers are made. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant - M/s. Krishna Travel Agency submits that the award should have been filed before this Court, as appointment of the arbitrator was made by this Court. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the award and not the District Judge, Dehradun. And secondly, learned counsel submitted that in case, the first prayer is not acceded to, then an appropriate direction may be given to the District Judge, Dehradun to dispose of the proceeding including the objections filed by the applicant under S.34, expeditiously.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent - applicant has submitted that since the arbitrator has been appointed by this Court, this court alone has the jurisdiction to dispose of the objections filed by the respondent - applicant. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent - applicant has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. 1972 (1) SCC 702 . In this case, this Court appointed the arbitrator and it was observed by this Court :
"in absence of any other court having been invested with such jurisdiction by the order, the only conclusion that is possible is that such a request must be made only to the court which passed that order, namely, this Court."

4. Learned counsel emphasized that the definition of the "Court" as given in the Act of 1940 and that in S.2(e) of the 1996 Act are paramateria and therefore in view of the decision given by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain the objections. In another case, M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation vs. M/s. Rattan Singh and sons 1981 (4) SCC 634 , in para 20, it was observed :
"in view of the fact that a reference was made by this Court to the 3rd respondent and that this Court gave further direction about the manner and method of conducting the arbitration proceedings and fixed the time for completion of arb