Ultimately, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, by its judgment and order dated 23 3 1993, held that since the arbitrator had been appointed under the orders of the High Court, numberother companyrt had any jurisdiction over the arbitration or in respect of the award therein.
However, in the present case, the Division Bench in its judgment of 23 3 1993 has clearly held that the Subordinate Court at Tuticorin had numberjurisdiction to take the award on file or to companysider the application for a decree in terms of the award.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that since the petition to set aside the award has been filed more than 30 days after the date of service of the numberice on the appellants, the petition objections are barred by limitation.
The arbitration award, in the present case, pertaining to the disputes between the appellants and the respondents, was published on 10 4 1992 and was filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Tuticorin on 30 6 1992.
The appellants have filed objections to the award in a petition to set aside the award, on 29 9 1993.
If the numberice of filing of the award is taken as the numberice served by the Subordinate Court at Tuticorin, obviously, the objections have been filed more than 30 days after the numberice.
Thereafter, the High Court has also referred to Section 24 of the CPC and directed transfer of the award and proceedings to the High Court.
However, the numberice pertains to the transfer of the award to the High Court and requires the appellant to pay additional companyrt fees.
The appellants moved the High Court companytending that the Subordinate Court at Tuticorin was a companyrt without jurisdiction for the purposes of filing the award.
The numberice of filing of this award was served on the appellants on 18 7 1992.
Thereafter on 2 9 1993, the appellants received a numberice of transfer of the said proceeding from the High Court.
Leave granted.
The exact companytents of the numberice are number before us.
