DUSHASAN SAHOO Vs. GEETARANI MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid appeals, under section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "1996 Act" ) have been filed by two sets of Defendants, against a common judgment and order dated 17.3.2008, passed by the learned Dist. Judge Khurda at Bhubaneswar, on an application filed by the Respondents under section 9 of the said Act which was registered as Arbitration Petition No.15 of 2008.

(2.) THE operative part of the impugned order of the learned Dist. Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar is quoted hereunder:

(3.) MR. Chatterjee in conclusion of the argument, placed reliance on various decisions including the case of Hindustan Papers Corporation Ltd. Vs. Keneilhouse Angami, 1990 (1) CAL. L.T. 200: Vol.68, Company Cases, 361 wherein, the Calcutta High Court in paragraph-9 of the judgment in which matter arose out of an application seeking an injunction from invoking the bank guarantee held that although the arbitration agreement may be very wide but that certainly does cover the dispute arising under "a separate agreement with a separate party". MR. Chatterjee also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MD. Army Welfare Housing Organisation Vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619 and in particular, observations of the Court in Paragraphs-43 and 69 thereof, wherein, the Apex Court has observed that "an Arbitral Tribunal is snot a court of law. It's orders are not judicial orders. Its functions are not judicial functions. It can not exercise its power ex debito justiae. The jurisdiction of the arbitrator being confined to the four corners of the agreement, he can only pass such an order which may be the subject matter of reference."