ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

Section 34

Application for setting aside arbitral award - Non-raising of objection regarding jurisdiction of arbitration by purchaser - Mentioning of place of arbitration in other agreements - Whether High Court rightly set aside order of District Judge dismissing application for setting aside arbitral award

Supplier provided equipments to purchaser. However, the purchaser did not make payment of the equipments. The supplier invoked arbitration proceedings and arbitrators at Delhi passed an award. Therefore, the purchaser filed an application under section 34 for setting aside arbitral award on the ground that venue of arbitration in terms of agreement was at Kolkata, but District Judge of Kolkata dismissed the application. However, High Court set aside the order of District Judge of Kolkata and the application was restored to Board of Additional District Judge. Therefore, the supplier filed an appeal before Apex Court against the order on the ground that there were several agreements and the place of the arbitration as mentioned in other agreements was at Delhi. Held: It was possible for the purchaser to raise submissions that arbitration pertaining to each of the agreements be considered and dealt with separately. It was also possible for him to contend that in respect of the agreement where the venue was agreed to be at Kolkata, the arbitration proceedings be conducted accordingly. Considering the facts that the purchaser failed to participate in the proceedings before the Arbitrator and did not raise any submission that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction or that he was exceeding the scope of his authority, the purchaser must be deemed to have waived off all such objections. Therefore, the purchaser was then precluded from raising any submission or objection as to the venue of arbitration, the conclusion drawn by the Court at Kolkata while dismissing the application was quite correct and did not call for any interference. Further that, there were several agreements and the place of the arbitration as mentioned in other agreements was at Delhi. The High Court was in error in setting aside the order. Thus, the order of the District Judge of Kolkata was restored.

REFERRED : Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datavind Innovations (P) Ltd.: (2017) 7 SCC 678 : 2017 TaxPub(CL) 258 (SC) and Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited (2017) 9 SCC 729.

FAVOUR : In favour of appellant.

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT