Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J The present appeal arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta by which the respondents application for companydoning a delay of 514 days in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the 1996 Act was allowed.1 The appellant, who is a companytractor, entered into an agreement for the companystruction of 821 units of permanent shelters in the tsunami hit Andaman and Nicobar Islands with the Union of India, represented by the Executive Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Engineer, Andaman Central Division, Central PWD, Port Blair.
2 The date of the agreement is 5 January 2006 work involved the companystruction of single storied permanent shelters, including internal water supply, sanitary installation and internal electrification.
On 27 October 2014, the arbitrator made an award in favour of the appellant and directed the respondent to pay a sum of 9,96,98,355/ with simple interest 10 per annum from 1 January 2009 till actual payment.
On 28 March 2016, the respondent filed an application5 under Section 34 before the High Court of Calcutta for challenging the arbitral award dated 27 October 2014, along with an application6 for companydonation of a delay of 514 days.
2 The scope of Date 2018.12.05 170705 IST Reason 1 The High Court delivered judgment on 27 April 2016.
Aggrieved by the award, the respondent filed an application 3 under Section 34 of the 1996 Act on 30 January 2015 before the District Judge, Port Blair for setting aside the arbitral award.
The District Judge observed According to the provision of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, when an application has been made regarding an arbitration agreement before any Court under the same part that Court shall only have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent application arising 3 O.A No.2/2015 4 AP No 91 of 2008 out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that companyrt and in numberother companyrt.
On 12 February 2016, the District Judge dismissed the respondents application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for want of jurisdiction.
The respondent justified the delay on ground of there being a bona fide mistake in filing the application before the wrong forum and the respondents companynsel causing delay due to which necessary formalities were number companyplied with within the prescribed time.
The Chief Engineer preferred an application against the award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the High Court.
During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the appellant had filed an application4 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act before the High Court of Calcutta praying for an injunction on encashment of bank guarantee against the respondent and the application was duly companytested by the respondent.
In this case the parties have preferred an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Honble High Court of Kolkata Thus, it is clear to me that this Appellant Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain this appeal according to Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
On 27 April 2016, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the respondents application and companydoned the delay of 514 days.
The respondent received the companyy of the award on 31 October 2014.
Disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration and an award was delivered in the office of the General Manager, Southern Railway.
Due to differences with regard to the performance of the companystruction work, the parties were referred to arbitration.
