Arbitration forum rule clarified: Section 34 challenges lie before the Principal Civil Court, not the appointing court.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was applied to clarify that the forum for a Section 34 challenge is determined by the definition of "Court" in Section 2(1)(e), not by the fact that the arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court. Such appointment does not make the Supreme Court the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, and requiring challenges to be filed there would disrupt the Act's appellate scheme, including the appeal under Section 37(1)(b). The earlier view was reaffirmed that the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction remains the proper forum even where the appointment is made by the Supreme Court or the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitral award made by an arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court could be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only before the Supreme Court, or whether the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction remained the proper forum.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was applied to hold that the forum for filing and challenging an award is governed by the definition of "Court" in Section 2(1)(e) read with Section 34. Appointment of an arbitrator by the Supreme Court does not convert the Supreme Court into the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction. Accepting that contention would also disturb the appellate structure under the Act and defeat the right of appeal under Section 37(1)(b). The earlier view that the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction remains the competent forum, even where the appointment is made by the Supreme Court or the High Court, was reaffirmed.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the objections to the award merely because it appointed the arbitrator. The challenge lies before the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, and the request to have the award and objections decided by the Supreme Court was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The applications failed on the jurisdictional prayer, but the matter was directed to be disposed of expeditiously by the District Judge, Dehradun.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointment of an arbitrator by the Supreme Court or High Court does not make that court the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction under the 1996 Act; proceedings under Section 34 must be brought before the statutorily competent civil court, preserving the appeal structure under the Act.

---