9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the execution petition. 2. Effect of the ouster provision in the arbitration agreement. 3. Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Alleged settlement and payment between the parties. 5. Jurisdiction of civil courts in arbitration matters. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Execution Petition: The appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the execution petition as not maintainable. The Single Judge held that the execution petition could not be maintained due to the ouster provision in the arbitration agreement, which stated that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would not apply. 2. Effect of the Ouster Provision in the Arbitration Agreement: The arbitration clause in the agreement specified that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would not apply to the arbitration proceedings. The court examined whether this ouster provision could exclude the applicability of the Act. It was argued that parties cannot contract out of statutory provisions, and such an ouster clause would be void if it defeats the provisions of any law or is opposed to public policy. 3. Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs all arbitration proceedings in India unless expressly excluded by another statute. The court emphasized that parties cannot exclude the applicability of the Act through a contractual agreement, as it would defeat the purpose and policy of the statute. Section 36 of the Act provides that an arbitral award shall be enforced as if it were a decree of the court. 4. Alleged Settlement and Payment Between the Parties: NBCC claimed that the entire amount payable to IRCON had been settled and paid, which IRCON disputed. IRCON denied any settlement agreement and maintained that the awarded amount had not been fully paid as per the arbitration award. 5. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Arbitration Matters: The court reiterated that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts must be strictly construed. It held that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted unless explicitly stated by statute. The court referred to several judgments to support the view that parties cannot contract out of statutory provisions that govern arbitration and legal proceedings. Conclusion: The court concluded that the ouster provision in the arbitration agreement was void and unenforceable. It held that the execution petition was maintainable and that the arbitral award could be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the execution petition. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.
|
