J.S. Khehar JUDGMENT
J.S. Khehar, J.
1. State of Maharashtra, through its Public Works Department, awarded a contract dated 12.7.2000 to the Respondent-Atlanta Limited (a public limited company) for the construction of the Mumbra byepass. On 11.5.2005, a supplementary agreement for additional work was executed between the parties. It would be relevant to mention, that the Mumbra byepass falls on National highway No. 4. The construction envisaged in the contract awarded to the Respondent-Atlanta Limited was, from kilometer 133/800 to kilometer 138/200. The contract under reference envisaged, settlement of disputes between the parties, through arbitration. Atlanta Limited raised some disputes through a communication dated 1.10.2009. It also invoked the arbitration clause for resolution of the said disputes. The State of Maharashtra as also Atlanta Limited nominated their respective arbitrators, who in turn, appointed the presiding arbitrator. On the culmination of proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, an award was rendered on 12.5.2012. Almost all the claims raised by Atlanta Limited were granted. In sum and substance, Atlanta Limited was awarded a sum of Rs. 58,59,31,595/- along with the contracted rate of interest (of 20 per cent per annum), with effect from 1.10.2009. Atlanta Limited was also awarded a sum of Rs. 41,00,000/- towards costs. All the counter claims raised by the State of Maharashtra, before the arbitral tribunal, were simultaneously rejected.
2. On 7.8.2012, the State of Maharashtra moved Miscellaneous Application No. 229 of 2012 and Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') before the District Judge, Thane. The State of Maharashtra through the aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications sought quashing and setting aside of the arbitral award dated 12.5.2012.
3. On the same day, i.e., 7.8.2012, Atlanta Limited filed Arbitration Petition No. 1158 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), for the setting aside of some of the directions issued by the arbitral tribunal (in its award dated 12.5.2012). Atlanta Limited also claimed further compensation, which according to the Respondent, had wrongfully not been considered by the arbitral tribunal.
4. A perusal of the averments made in the foregoing two paragraphs reveal, that on the same day i.e., on 7.8.2012, the State of Maharashtra as also Atlanta Limited questioned the award of the arbitral tribunal dated 12.5.2012. Whilst the State of Maharashtra questioned the same before the District Judge, Thane; Atlanta Limited raised its challenge before the High Court. Since the same award dated 12.5.2012 was subject matter of challenge before two different courts, Atlanta Limited preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 162 of 2012 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for transfer of Miscellaneous Application No. 229 of 2012, as also, Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 2012 (both filed by the State of Maharashtra) before the District Court, Thane, to the original side of the High Court, for being heard along with........