2002 (1) TMI 1247 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file the copy of the agreement by respondent No. 1
2. Interpretation of arbitration clause in the agreement
3. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide disputes and differences
4. Objection raised by respondent No. 3 regarding being impleaded

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking arbitration for disputes between the parties. Despite opportunities given, respondent No. 1 failed to submit the agreement copy as required.

2. The agreement contained a clause (clause 13) stating that disputes not settled amicably shall be referred to arbitration upon written notice by either party. Respondent No. 1 argued against arbitration, citing clause 51 which referred disputes to a competent court. However, clause 23 also provided for adjudication by a sole arbitrator for disputes exceeding Rs. 5,000.

3. The judgment discusses the arbitrator's jurisdiction as per section 16 of the Act. It empowers the arbitrator to rule on its jurisdiction, including challenges to the arbitration agreement's existence or validity. Such objections should be raised during arbitral proceedings, and aggrieved parties can seek to set aside the arbitral award under section 34.

4. Respondent No. 3 objected to being impleaded, claiming it was not a necessary party and had no claims against it. The court held that this objection could be raised before the arbitrator, clarifying that respondent No. 3 was not a party to the agreement or the disputes in question.

5. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and the Secretary of the Department of Rural Development, Government of India, was directed to nominate a serving authority as the sole arbitrator within 30 days. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to arbitration clauses and allowing the arbitrator to decide on jurisdictional matters and objections raised during proceedings.