Skip to main content

Appeal against dismissal of application under Section 16 only after final award

Cause Title : M.D. Creations & Others vs Ashok Kumar Gupta, C.O. 2545 of 2022, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 09.06.2023

Corum : Bivas Pattanayak, J.

Citied: 

  1. Mcdermott International INC versus Burn Standard Co. Limited and others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181
  2. A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu versus S.Chellappan and Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 695
  3. Hindusthan Commercial Bank versus Punnu Sahu reported in AIR 1970 SC 1384
  4. Abanindra Kumar Maity versus A.K Biswas reported in AIR 1954 Cal 355
  5. Achutananda Baidya versus Prafullya Kumar Gayen & Ors reported in AIR 1997 SC 2077
  6. Security Hitech Graphics Private Limited versus LMI India Private Limited in C.O 1931 of 2022
  7. Deep Industries Limited versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2020) 15 SCC 706
  8. Bhaven Construction through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah versus Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. & Another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 75

Background

As per agreement, when dispute arose between the litigants, the matter was referred to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 which was allowed. The opposite party-claimant filed statement of claim before the arbitrator as well as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The petitioners also filed their statement in defence along with counter claim. In the proceedings before the learned arbitrator the petitioners raising the issue of the agreement being unstamped, filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act raising objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and for dismissal of the arbitral reference and alternatively for impounding of agreement dated 27th June 2019 and sending the said agreement for stamping and registration before the concerned authority. Upon considering the materials on record and hearing the parties the application of the petitioners under Section 16 of the Act was dismissed by the arbitrator who kept the issue raised with regard to unstamped document open since such defect is curable upon payment of deficit stamp duty and such aspect can be decided upon evidence.

The present appeal was filed by the Petitioners against the said dismissal arguing that on rejection of the plea of the petitioners in respect of their application under Section 16 of the Act by the arbitrator, the petitioners are left with no other alternative but to file revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

The HC observed that Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that if the arbitral tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction then an appeal can be filed under Section 37 of the Act. But if the arbitral tribunal considers that it is competent, which is the circumstances in the case at hand, then what would be the remedy available to the aggrieved party.

Referring to judgments in Deep Industries & Bhaven Construction (supra), the court decided that in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Court, in a case where the plea challenging jurisdictional competency of the arbitrator is dismissed, the aggrieved party has to wait till the passing of the final award, and then he can file an application for setting aside such an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. There is no segregated challenge permissible only on the question of the competency of the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, in the usual course the Arbitration Act provides for a mechanism of challenge under Section 34 of the Act and hence the aggrieved party cannot be said to be remediless in the circumstances of dismissal of application under Section 16 (2) of the Act. From the above judgements, it is clear that any challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator necessarily has to be determined by the arbitrator in the first instance and then it can only be challenged under Section 34 after passing of the final arbitral award. Therefore, in view of the proposition as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the court decided that in the case at hand the final arbitral award is yet to be passed hence the aggrieved party-petitioner in the event of dismissal of application under Section 16 of the Act has to wait till passing of the final award by the arbitrator and thereafter challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more