YOHANNAN KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O.P. (Arb.) No.31/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner raised certain disputes regarding the work under agreement dated 6-5-1986 and the same was referred to arbitration and the then Superintending Engineer, irrigation South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram was appointed as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator passed the award for an amount of Rs.13,23,750/- with interest. The revision petitioner filed O.P.(Arb).No.31/95 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam praying for a decree in terms of the award. The respondents filed application for setting aside the award. After considering the O.P. (Arb) the court below ordered that the plaint would be returned to the revision petitioner and the same has to be presented in proper court. The court further directed the revision petitioner to file an application under rule 10A of order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure within three days. It is submitted that instead of filing application the revision petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the impugned order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per sections 14 and 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the court before which the award is filed is competent to pass a decree in terms of the award. To substantiate the above contention learned counsel relies on a decision of the Apex Court reported in M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation V. M/s. Rattan Singh & Sons (AIR 1981 SC 2075) and a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Ferre Alloys Corporation Ltd. A.K. Ghosh and Bros. (AIR 1980 Cal.421).

(3.) Learned Government Pleader, relying on the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent contends that the order under challenge requires no interference in the light of unambiguous provision of sections 14 and 31 of the Arbitration Act.