A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 16, 31 – Place/Seat of Arbitration -- Place of arbitration was to be agreed upon between the parties -- It had not been agreed upon; and in case of failure of agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal is required to determine the same taking into consideration the convenience of the parties -- It is also incumbent on the Arbitral Tribunal that the determination shall be clearly stated in the “form and contents of award” that is postulated in Article 31.

(Para 31)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 16, 31 – Objections u/s 34 of the Act -- Place/Seat of Arbitration – Determination of -- Word ‘determination’ requires a positive act to be done – Arbitrator held the meeting at Kuala Lumpur and signed the award – Held, that does not amount to determination -- Sittings at various places are relatable to venue -- It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration which has a different connotation – Courts in India have jurisdiction, High Court is requested to deal with the application preferred u/s 34 of the Act as expeditiously as possible.

 (Para 32-34)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 16, 31 – Objections u/s 34 of the Act -- Place/Seat of Arbitration – Determination of -- Word ‘determination’ has to be contextually determined -- When a ‘place’ is agreed upon, it gets the status of seat which means the juridical seat -- Term ‘place’ and ‘seat’ are used interchangeably -- When only the term ‘place’ is stated or mentioned and no other condition is postulated, it is equivalent to ‘seat’ and that finalises the facet of jurisdiction -- But if a condition precedent is attached to the term ‘place’, the said condition has to be satisfied so that the place can become equivalent to seat.

(Para 33)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Objections against the arbitral award – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Power of -- The words 'but not thereafter' in the proviso are of mandatory nature, and couched in the negative, and leave no room for doubt -- Proviso to Section 34 gives discretion to the court to condone the delay for a sufficient cause, but that discretion cannot be extended beyond the period of thirty days, which is made exclusively clear by use of the words 'but not thereafter'.

(Para 14)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(5), 34 (3) -- Objections against the arbitral award – Limitation – Starts from -- By cumulative reading of Section 34(3) and Section 31(5) of the Act, it is clear that the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act would commence only from the date of signed copy of the award delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside.

(Para 16)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(5), 34 – Service of award to Head of family – Received the award wth the endorsement “For myself and on behalf of my family members” -- In interim MOU dated 29.06.1996, petitioner signed for self and as a power of attorney holder for his wife and his all sons and daughter-in-law –Petitioner, being the head of his family, was a person directly connected with and involved in the proceeding and was also in control of the proceeding -- Being head of the family, petitioner would have been the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award and take a decision as to whether an application u/s 34 of the Act was required to be filed or not -- In such facts and circumstances, service of arbitral award on petitioner amounts to service on the other appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 and they cannot plead non-compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act.

(Para 18-23)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 16, 34 – Plea of Jurisdiction – Objection of -- No bar to plea of jurisdiction being raised by way of an objection u/s 34 of the Act even if no such objection was raised u/s 16.

(Para 6)

B. State Law – Central Law -- Public policy of India refers to law in force in India whether State law or Central law -- Accordingly, observations to the contrary in Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment in MSP Infrastructures Ltd. (2015) 13 SCC 713, overruled.

(Para 8,9)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 36, 42 -- Arbitration award – Execution as decree of civil court – Enforcement mechanism, which is akin to the enforcement of a decree but the award itself is not a decree of the civil court as no decree whatsoever is passed by the civil court -- It is the arbitral tribunal, which renders an award and the tribunal does not have the power of execution of a decree -- For the purposes of execution of a decree the award is to be enforced in the same manner as if it was a decree under the said Code.

(Para 15)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 32, 36, 42 – Arbitral award – Execution as decree of civil court – Territorial jurisdiction -- When an award is already made, of which execution is sought, the arbitral proceedings already stand terminated on the making of the final award -- Thus, it is not appreciated how Section 42 of the said Act, which deals with the jurisdiction issue in respect of arbitral proceedings, would have any relevance.

(Para 19)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 32, 36, 42 – Arbitral award – Execution as decree of civil court – Territorial jurisdiction -- Enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.

(Para 22)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 2(c), 31(6), 32, 34 – Finding on limitation – Interim award -- Ld. Arbitrator has disposed of one matter between the parties i.e. the issue of limitation finally – The award is an interim award, which being an arbitral award, can be challenged separately and independently under Section 34 of the Act.

(Para 7, 14-16, 29)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 2(c), 16, 31(6), 32, 34 – Finding on limitation -- Interim award -- An award, which does not relate to the arbitral tribunal’s own jurisdiction u/s 16, does not have to follow the drill of Section 16(5) and (6) of the Act -- Parliament may consider amending Section 34 of the Act so as to consolidate all interim awards together with the final arbitral award, so that one challenge u/s 34 can be made after delivery of the final arbitral award -- Piecemeal challenges like piecemeal awards lead to unnecessary delay and additional expense.

(Para 29)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Decree – Execution of -- Objection before Executing Court -- If the objections had been raised by the judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code challenging the decree then it was necessary for the executing Court to deal with the objections and record its finding one way or other in accordance with law.

(Para 29)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Decree – Objections to -- Objection, if none had any merit whatsoever, they simply deserved rejection at the outset.

(Para 29)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Arbitration award/Decree – Execution of -- Objection to -- All the objections ought to have been raised by the respondents before the Arbitrator or/and Additional District Judge under Section 34 of the Act but certainly none of them could be allowed to be raised in execution once the award became final and attained finality as decree of the Civil Court.

(Para 30)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Arbitration award/Decree – Execution of -- Objection to -- Objections were on facts and pertained to the merits of the controversy, which stood decided by the Arbitrator resulting in passing of an award -- None of the objections were in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court affecting the root of the very passing of the decree -- If the executing Court had probed these objections then it would have travelled behind the decree, which was not permissible in law -- An inquiry into facts, which ought to have been done in a suit or in an appeal arising out of the suit or in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, cannot be held in execution proceedings in relation to such award/decree.

(Para 31)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 Rule 1,2 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Arbitration award/Decree – Decreetal amount -- Payment of – Procedure of -- No amount was paid by the respondents to the appellant pursuant to the award/decree so as to enable the executing Court to record its full satisfaction in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 – Executing Court is directed to issue warrant for recovery of the entire awarded decretal amount.

 (Para 37-39)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7, 11 -- Conducting agreement -- Arbitration clause – Delegation of Judicial function – Permissibility of -- Ld. Single Judge prima facie was of the view that the “conducting agreement” may be a lease of the immovable property and sent the matter to Registrar (Judicial), who shall determine whether the transaction is in the nature of lease or licence and stamp duty that is attracted -- Held, a judicial functioning has to be done in a judicial manner -- Duty of determination of an instrument or, to explicate, to determine when there is a contest a particular document to be of specific nature, the adjudication has to be done by the Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties -- It is a part of judicial function and hence, the same cannot be delegated.

 (Para 6-17)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 35 -- Two-tier arbitration – Permissibility of -- Whether a settlement of disputes or differences through a two-tier arbitration procedure as provided for in Clause 14 of the contract between the parties is permissible under the laws of India? – “final and binding” clause in Section 35 of the A&C Act does not mean final for all intents and purposes -- Finality is subject to any recourse that an aggrieved party might have under a statute or an agreement providing for arbitration in the second instance -- There is nothing in the A&C Act that prohibits the contracting parties from agreeing upon a second instance or appellate arbitration, either explicitly or implicitly – Held, arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties does not violate the fundamental or public policy of India by the parties agreeing to a second instance arbitration -- Question is answered in the affirmative.

(Para 34, 44-46)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 5, 34, 37 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order XLI Rule 22 -- Arbitration award – Appeal against order on objection to award -- Cross-objections – Maintainability of -- The 1996 Act is a complete Code and Section 5 in categorical terms along with other provisions, lead to a definite conclusion that no other provision can be attracted -- Thus, the application of CPC is not conceived of and, therefore, as a natural corollary, the cross-objection cannot be entertained.

(Para 27,28)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 5 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 1 – Applicability of CPC -- Analysis made in ITI Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510 to the effect that merely because the 1996 Act does not provide CPC to be applicable, it should not be inferred that the Code is inapplicable seems to be incorrect, for the scheme of the 1996 Act clearly envisages otherwise -- View expressed in ITI Ltd., deserves to be re-considered by a larger Bench.

(Para 28, 29)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8(1)(2) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Original/certified copy of arbitration agreement – Requirement of -- Section 8(2) has to be interpreted to mean that the court shall not consider any application filed by the party u/s 8(1) unless it is accompanied by original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy thereof -- Filing of the application without such original or certified copy, but bringing original arbitration agreement on record at the time when the Court is considering the application shall not entail rejection of the application under Section 8(2).

(Para 22)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8(1)(2) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Plaintiffs admittedly are parties to the arbitration agreement – It does not lie in their mouth to contend that since one of the defendants whom they have impleaded was not party to the arbitration agreement, no reference can be made to the arbitrator.

(Para 26)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8(1)(2) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Submission that partnership being an unregistered partnership, no reference can be made to the arbitration – Held, when the partners and those who claim through partners agreed to get the dispute settled by arbitration, it is not open for the appellants to contend that partnership being unregistered partnership, the dispute cannot be referred.

(Para 28)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(5), Fifth Schedule – Appointment of Arbitrator – Disqualification of -- Mere existence of conditions, illustrations of which are furnished in the Fifth Schedule, does not necessarily result in the disqualification of a person being appointed as an arbitrator -- Sub-section (5), on the other hand, stipulates the conditions which render a person ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.

(Para 10)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(1)(5), Fifth Schedule, Seventh Schedule – Appointment of Arbitrator – Challenge to -- Facts to be disclosed under sub-section (1) of section 12 do not necessarily render a person ineligible to be appointed an arbitrator -- If the facts required to be disclosed under sub-section (1) also fall under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule, he would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator -- If, the facts disclosed under sub-section (1) do not fall under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule, he would not be rendered ineligible per se -- Whether such facts ought to render him ineligible or not would then depend upon the facts of the case -- Some of the categories in the Fifth and the Seventh Schedules are the same -- In such cases, the person would be ineligible to be appointed an arbitrator in view of sub-section (5).

(Para 11)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Former employee -- Chief Secretary of a State is the head of the administrative machinery of the State, has control over the administrative offices of the State and is the main link between the State and the Centre -- Arbitrator was bound to disclose was that she is a former Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana -- This does not render her ineligible to be appointed an arbitrator -- Bar is against a person who is, at the time of appointment, an employee, consultant or advisor of the party concerned -- There is no bar against a former employee, consultant or advisor -- Contention that former employees are disqualified from being appointed because they receive pension and post-retiral benefits from the Government is irrelevant.

 (Para 12, 18, 19)

D. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11, 12 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Disclosure of past engagement -- It is not even necessary for a person, who is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, to disclose in writing a past employment or engagement as an employee, consultant or advisor unless such employment or engagement is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality.

(Para 23)

E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 196), Section 12(1), Sixth Schedule – Appointment of Arbitrator – Non-disclosure of past engagement – Contention that the form of the certificate prescribed in the Sixth Schedule establishes that the issuance of the certificate is a condition precedent to the acceptance of an appointment as an arbitrator under section 12(1) – Held, the form is in the affirmative and not in the negative -- If, according to the arbitrator, there are no circumstances which are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts about his independence or impartiality or which are likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time to the arbitration, there is no question of his issuing the certificate in terms of the Sixth Schedule -- Sixth Schedule does not require a certificate in the negative stating that there are no circumstances which are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts about the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator.

(Para 24)

F. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 196), Section 12, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule – Appointment of Arbitrator – Disclosure of past engagement -- Disclosure would be necessary to all the parties, however, the disclosure to the other parties is necessary only from the time of his appointment as is evident from sub-section (2) of section 12 -- Mere nomination of a person as an arbitrator does not lead to or result in his appointment as an arbitrator -- Appointment is complete only upon his accepting it -- If he is inclined to accept his appointment and circumstances stipulated in section 12(1) read with the Fifth Schedule exist, he must make the disclosure as per the format provided in the Sixth  Schedule -- A view to the contrary would render sub-section (2) otiose -- If the disclosure was to be made at the stage contemplated in sub-section (1), it would have been unnecessary to enact sub-section (2).

(Para 27,28)

G. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 196), Section 11, 12 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Disclosure of prior engagement -- It would be an implied term of every appointment by the High Court u/s 11 that a disclosure is to be made -- In other words, the appointment made by the High Court is subject to and, therefore, becomes effective upon the disclosure being made and further subject to any challenge to the appointment.

(Para 31, 32)

H. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 196), Section 11, 13, 16 -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Challenge to – Remedy of -- If it is found subsequently that the arbitrator was ineligible to be appointed for any reason, the petitioner’s remedy to challenge the appointment would be under section 13 or under section 16 and not under section 11.

(Para 14)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Arbitration clause – Allegation of fraud – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Mere allegation of fraud simplicitor may not be a ground to nullify the effect of arbitration agreement between the parties -- It is only in those cases where the Court, while dealing with Section 8 of the Act, finds that there are very serious allegations of fraud which make a virtual case of criminal offence or where allegations of fraud are so complicated that it becomes absolutely essential that such complex issues can be decided only by civil court on the appreciation of the voluminous evidence that needs to be produced, the Court can sidetrack the agreement by dismissing application u/s 8 and proceed with the suit on merits.

(Para 20)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Arbitration clause – Allegation of fraud – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Civil Court proceed with the suit on merits, where there are serious allegations of forgery/fabrication of documents in support of the plea of fraud or where fraud is alleged against the arbitration provision itself or is of such a nature that permeates the entire contract, including the agreement to arbitrate, meaning thereby in those cases where fraud goes to the validity of the contract itself of the entire contract which contains the arbitration clause or the validity of the arbitration clause itself.

(Para 20)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Arbitration clause – Allegation of fraud – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Where there are simple allegations of fraud touching upon the internal affairs of the party inter se and it has no implication in the public domain, the arbitration clause need not be avoided and the parties can be relegated to arbitration.

(Para 20)

D. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Arbitration clause – Allegation of fraud – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- In an application u/s 8 of the Act, the focus of the Court has to be on the question as to whether jurisdiction of the Court has been ousted instead of focusing on the issue as to whether the Court has jurisdiction or not -- It has to be kept in mind that insofar as the statutory scheme of the Act is concerned, it does not specifically exclude any category of cases as non-arbitrable -- Such categories of non-arbitrable subjects are carved out by the Courts, keeping in mind the principle of common law that certain disputes which are of public nature, etc. are not capable of adjudication and settlement by arbitration and for resolution of such disputes, Courts, i.e. public fora, are better suited than a private forum of arbitration.

(Para 20)

E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Arbitration clause – Allegation of fraud – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Inquiry by Court -- The inquiry of the Court, while dealing with an application u/s 8 of the Act, should be viz. whether the nature of dispute is such that it cannot be referred to arbitration, even if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties -- When the case of fraud is set up by one of the parties and on that basis that party wants to wriggle out of that arbitration agreement, a strict and meticulous inquiry into the allegations of fraud is needed and only when the Court is satisfied that the allegations are of serious and complicated nature that it would be more appropriate for the Court to deal with the subject matter rather than relegating the parties to arbitration, then alone such an application u/s 8 should be rejected.

(Para 20)

F. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Arbitration clause – Allegation of fraud – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Only allegation of fraud that is levelled is that the appellant had signed and issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,050/- dated 17.06.2010 of 'Hotel Arunagiri' in favour of his son without the knowledge and consent of the other partners i.e. the respondents -- It is a mere matter of accounts which can be looked into and found out even by the arbitrator -- It does not involve any complex issue.

(Para 21)

A. Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), Section 30, 33 – Arbitral award – Challenge to -- Award can be set aside only on the grounds specified in sub-clause (a) (b) and (c) of Section 30 of 1940 Act and on no other grounds -- Grounds such as inadequacy of reasons in support of an award, error committed by the arbitrator on facts, alternate or/and more plausible view could be taken then what is taken by the arbitrator, improper appreciation of evidence done by the arbitrator in recording any finding etc. are not the grounds on which any award much less a reasoned award can be set aside.

(Para 31, 32)

B. Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), Section 30, 33 -- Arbitral award – Challenge to -- Appellate Court jurisdiction – High Court virtually sat as an appellate Court as if it was hearing the appeal arising out of the award and proceeded to probe into all factual issues arising in the case – High Court gone to the extent of permitting the State’s counsel to file some documents in appeal and then went on to examine the case on facts and eventually held that the arbitrator has travelled beyond clauses of the agreement and hence committed legal misconduct requiring the High Court to set aside the award – Held, such approach is wholly against the law.

(i)    In the first place, the High Court did not apply the law laid down by this Court while deciding the appeal and hence committed a jurisdictional error;

(ii)   Secondly, the High Court acted like an appellate Court and virtually treated as if the appeal arose directly against the award and then proceeded to examine all factual findings of the arbitrator by appreciating the evidence, it was not permissible in law;

(iii)  Thirdly, the High Court should have confined its inquiry to find out as to whether any legal misconduct was committed by the arbitrator and, if so, how and in what manner, it was, however, not done;

(iv)   Fourthly, the High Court went into the factual question by referring to clause of the agreement for holding that the arbitrator passed an award contrary to clause and thereby traveled beyond the terms of agreement which constituted a legal misconduct on his part -- In the absence of any finding recorded by the arbitrator and the Trial Court, such issue could not have been gone into for the first time in appeal by the High Court -- Being a question of fact, the same could not be examined in appeal.’

(v)    Fifthly, Clause 26 had nothing to do with the claims filed by the appellants -- Finding of the High Court that the award is rendered bad because it was passed in contravention of clause 26 of the agreement is, therefore, not legally sustainable in law;

(vi)   Sixthly, the High Court further failed to see that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the findings recorded by the arbitrator;

(vii)  Seventhly, the High Court also failed to see that the Trial Court had elaborately gone into all the factual issues and rightly did not find any substance in the objections raised by the respondent; and

(viii) lastly, the award being a reasoned one, the reasoning of the arbitrator could not be said to be perverse to the extent that no man with ordinary prudence could take such view and nor any finding of the arbitrator was against any provision of law or in contravention of any of the clauses of the agreement so as to constitute a case of legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act for setting aside an award.

(Para 33-37)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 2(1)(e)(ii), 9, 37 – Letters Patent Appeal Rules, Clause 10 – Arbitration proceedings -- Interim order – L.P.A. – Maintainability of – An order passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 9 would be appealable under Section 37(1)(b) but not under clause 10 of the Letters Patent – LPA is not maintainable.

 (Para 2-7, 32-41)

B. Appeal – Remedy of – Interpretation of Statue -- Rules of interpretation of a statute would command that language of the statute be respected to be read as it is without injecting any other meaning to read non-existent words into it -- Appeal is creation of a statute and if not otherwise provided in the enactment, the remedy has to be treated to be an exclusion.

(Para 25-27)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 1 – Object of the Act -- Interpretation of statute -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a special statute enacted to keep pace with the UNCITRAL Model providing expeditious settlement -- Therefore, the objective of the Act also has to be kept in mind while placing an interpretation on its provisions.

(Para 28)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Foreign arbitration award – Execution of -- Objection u/s 34 of Indian Arbitration Act -- Where the parties choose a juridical seat of Arbitration outside India and provide that the law which governs Arbitration will be a law other than Indian law, part I of the Indian Arbitration Act would not have any application and, therefore, the award debtor would not be entitled to challenge the award by raising objections u/s 34 before a Court in India -- Proceedings u/s 34, which occurs in Part I, are liable to be dismissed as untenable -- Judgment of the High Court enforcing the Foreign Award under Part II of the Arbitration Act is correct and liable to be upheld.

(Para 28-34)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Discussion on merit - Jurisdiction of Court -- Jurisdiction of Court u/s 11 of the Act is limited and confine to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the contracting parties and, if so, whether any dispute has arisen between them out of such agreement which may call for appointment of arbitrator to decide such disputes -- A discussion much less with such elaboration on factual issues was wholly uncalled for and should not have been made -- Indeed, it was not necessary for the learned Single Judge to have recorded any finding on merits while making reference to the arbitrator u/s 11 of the Act.

(Para 12-14)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 33(4) – Review of award – Power of -- It is a trite law that a decree should be specific and well defined with sufficient precision to be executable since an award becomes a decree in arbitration law -- Section 33 (4) is a request jurisdiction to cure a material thing which has been left out or omitted by the Arbitrator in the award and the jurisdiction conferred by section 33 is to be exercised in the manner provided and is not plenary to the disputes referred to arbitration.

(Para 45)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 33(4) – Review of award – Power of -- Original award was reviewed by the Arbitrator which was improper exercise of jurisdiction -- Section 33(4) of the Act makes provisions for re-visiting the award by the Arbitrator if there is no agreement to the contrary, then an aggrieved party with notice to the opposite party may request, within 30 days from the receipt of the award to make an additional award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the award -- Arbitral tribunal would examine such a request under section 33 (5) of the Act and if it is found justified it may proceed to make an additional award within 60 days of such request -- Whereas the object of section 34 (4) is to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.

(Para 45)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 33(4), 34(4) – Arbitration award -- Summary dismissal of appeal -- Review of -- Court do not think the ends of justice were served in summary dismissal of the appeals on grounds of delay, laches and limitation -- Due regard should have been had for an effective consideration of the issues involved after hearing counsel at length by noticing and deciding the issues raised by both the parties -- Hence the order/s, in the opinion of the court, on careful reconsideration deserves to be reviewed -- Cases stand remitted to the Arbitrator for eliminating the grounds of challenge as per mandate of section 34 (4) of the Act, 1996.

(Para 46,47)

Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), Section 8 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 15(2) -- Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 89 – Appointment of arbitrator – Substitute Arbitrator -- Section 89 of the CPC specifically provides that a Court hearing a suit may formulate terms of settlement between the parties and may either settle the same or refer the same for settlement by conciliation, judicial settlement, mediation or arbitration – Following the mandate of Section 89, the High Court disposed of the suit between the parties by recording the settlement between the parties in clauses 1 to 7 of the consent terms and by referring the remaining disputes to arbitration -- Therefore it is clear that it is the High Court that was the appointing authority which had in fact appointed arbitrator in terms of clause 8 of the consent terms – Lateron High Court correctly appointed another independent retired Judge as substitute arbitrator in terms of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 -- Object of speedy resolution of disputes by arbitration would best be sub-served by a substitute arbitrator continuing at the point at which the earlier arbitrator has left off.

(Para 21,22)