M A MOHD AMANULLA Vs. B R CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under sub-section (4) of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') to challenge the order dated 15-4-2004 in A. S. No. 15001/2004 passed by the learned IV Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore City (henceforth referred to as 'city Civil Judge'), in passing whereof, the learned City Civil Judge had dismissed the petition of the appellant filed under Section 34 of the Act. Before proceeding further, I feel it appropriate to set out the brief facts of the case, which are as hereunder :

(2.) THE appellant had filed an application under Section 34 of the Act as against the respondent before the learned City Civil Judge to challenge the order passed by the Arbitrator holding that the agreement dated 4-10-2000 was not properly stamped as required under the relevant provision of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and as such, the same was not admissible in evidence. In doing that, as I see, the Arbitrator had rejected the plea of the appellant and therefore the appellant had filed an application for setting aside the order of the Arbitrator terming the same as an 'interim award' whereas it was neither an award nor interim award but it was only a finding on the point of admissibility of the agreement in evidence and nothing beyond. All that the Arbitrator did, as I see, was to reject the plea of the appellant. The learned City Civil Judge in passing the impugned order had held that the order passed by the Arbitrator was neither perverse nor capricious. The appellant herein had resorted to the instant appeal to challenge that order of the learned City Civil Judge limited to affirming of the finding of the Arbitrator on the point of admissibility of the document in evidence and strictly speaking the Arbitrator had passed neither an award nor arbitrary award much less an interim award as contended by the appellant.

(3.) I heard the able argument of the learned counsel appearing for the contending parties. They also filed written arguments at the instance of the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had filed the following authorities in support of his argument: (1) AIR 2003 Kar 3 : (2002 AIR Kant HCR 2568) Riyaz Khan v. Modi Mohammed Ismail (2) AIR 2003 Kant 217 : (2003 AIR Kant HCR 882), (Mahadeva v. Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore)