2001 (3) TMI 1093 - SCH - Indian Laws

Summary

The Supreme Court of India, in the case cited as 2001 (3) TMI 1093 - SC Order, reviewed special leave applications challenging a Bombay High Court decision. The High Court had refused to interfere with a civil court's order vacating an interim injunction against arbitral proceedings. The primary legal issue was whether a civil court could grant an injunction when the existence of an arbitration clause was disputed.The Court, comprising Hon'ble Judges G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan, and B.N. Agrawal, emphasized the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Section 5 and Section 16. These sections grant the arbitral tribunal the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that "the civil court cannot have jurisdiction to go into that question" of the arbitration agreement's existence, as the arbitral tribunal is empowered to address such objections.The Court concluded that any decision by the arbitral tribunal regarding its jurisdiction could be contested under Section 34 of the Act. The Court found no error in the High Court's decision and vacated the interim order, thereby dismissing the petitions. The Petitioner was advised to raise jurisdictional objections within the arbitral proceedings, allowing the arbitrator to address these as preliminary issues.