9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia must necessarily understood as being referable to the policy of the Union. It is well known, vide Article 1 of the Constitution, the name 'India' is the name of the Union of States and its territories include those of the States. There are no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the amendment application raised a ground which was contrary to law and ought not to have been allowed by the High Court. Appeal allowed. - JASTI CHELAMESWAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ. For the Appellant : Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., Kunal Verma, Siddharth Shrivastava, Medha Shrivastava and Oshi Jain, Advs. For the Respondent : Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. and Ashish Kumar, Adv. JUDGMENT S.A. Bobde, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The question that has arisen in this appeal is: whether a party to an arbitration proceeding may be permitted to raise objections Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act, 1996 ), with regard to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) after the stage of submission of the written statement. 3. M/s. M.S.P. Infrastructure (Appellant) and the M.P. Road Developm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were simply considering the amendment application. 9. On 18-02-2010, the High Court allowed the Respondent's petition and set aside the order of the District Court, thus allowing the amendment application. 10. Aggrieved by the allowing of the amendment application, the Appellant has moved this Court. We must at once notice that the main challenge to the order allowing the amendment is that it allows the Respondent to raise an objection to jurisdiction contrary to Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which provides that an objection to jurisdiction shall not be raised later than the submission of the statement of defence. The grounds allowed to be raised by the order allowing the amendment application are as follows: I-A That the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to appoint any Arbitral Tribunal of private persons to entertain and decide the dispute between the parties as it related to a works contract between a contractor and a/Govt. Undertaking. I-B That the dispute being a dispute between a contractor and a Govt. Undertaking arising out of a works contract of more than Rs. 50,000/- the Arbitration Tribunal Constituted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Therefore, according to the Appellant, there is no merit whatsoever in the ground introduced by the amendment application. Even otherwise, the Appellant contended that the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996, being a Parliamentary Statute would have precedence over the M.P. Act of 1983, which is a State Act on the same subject. Above all, it was contended that the introduction of the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction is grossly belated and impermissible in view of Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. 13. It is clear from the circumstances, that in the event it is found that the newly added ground could not have been raised at this stage, i.e. the stage at which it was allowed to be raised, it is not necessary to go into the wider question as to which Act will prevail, the Central Act or the State Act. Thus, the only question that falls for consideration at this stage is whether, having regard to Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the Respondent was entitled to introduce the ground that the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Act of 1983 would take precedence over the Tribunal constituted under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that a party is entitled under the law to raise an objection at any stage as to the absence of jurisdiction of the Court which decided the matter, since the order of such a Court is a nullity. It is not necessary to refer to the long line of cases in this regard since, that is the law. But, it must be remembered that this position of law has been well settled in relation to civil disputes in Courts and not in relation to arbitrations under the Arbitration Act, 1996. Parliament has the undoubted power to enact a special rule of law to deal with arbitrations and in fact, has done so. Parliament, in its wisdom, must be deemed to have had knowledge of the entire existing law on the subject and if it chose to enact a provision contrary to the general law on the subject, its wisdom cannot be doubted. In the circumstances, we reject the submission on behalf of the Respondent. 16. It was next contended on behalf of the Respondent by Shri Divan, that Section 16 undoubtedly empowers the Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction and any objections to it must be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence. However, according to the learned senior Counsel, objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes. The scheme of the Act is thus clear. All objections to jurisdiction of whatever nature must be taken at the stage of the submission of the statement of defence, and must be dealt with Under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. However, if one of the parties seeks to contend that the subject matter of the dispute is such as cannot be dealt with by arbitration, it may be dealt Under Section 34 by the Court. 17. It was also contended by Shri Divan, that the newly added ground that the Tribunal under the Arbitration Act, 1996 had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question because the jurisdiction lay with the Tribunal under the M.P. Act of 1983, was a question which can be agitated Under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. This provision enables the court to set-aside an award which is in conflict with the public policy of India. Therefore, it is contended that the amendment had been rightly allowed and it cannot be said that what was raised was only a question which pertained to jurisdiction and ought to have been raised ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
