18 May 2021 | Raghuvir Buildcon Private Ltd. v. IRCON International Limited | Arb. A. (COMM) 15 of 2021 | C Hari Shankar J
On the respondent’s application under Section 16 ACA, the arbitrator ruled that some issues were outside the scope of the reference: some arose after the reference, and others were “excepted matter.”
In the appeal, a single judge rejected the argument that the court’s jurisdiction under Section 37 (2) (a) ACA (the appealing provisions) is wider than Section 34 ACA:
Liberty was given to raise the issue of “excepted matter” again “only as the impugned order has been passed at the interlocutory stage.”
Access the judgment here.
* Editor’s note: It is not true that Section 37 (2) (b) permits appeals only against ‘interlocutory’ as opposed to final) orders of the tribunal. The court’s cited authority, Indian Farmers, is on a different point. Section 37 (2) (b) ACA permits appeal against an order accepting the plea that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction (as provided by Section 16 (2) ACA) or a plea that the tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority (as provided by Section 16 (3) ACA). The arbitrator had ruled that a claim was time-barred. If this was a question of jurisdiction, the order was appealable. The Supreme Court said that a decision on the point of limitation does not go to jurisdiction. It was an interim award that could be challenged in set-aside proceedings.
Categories: Appealable Orders | Competence Competence | Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to Rule on its Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction | Kompetenz Kompetenz | Scope of Section 37 (2) ACA | Section 16 (2) ACA | Section 16 (3) ACA | Section 16 ACA | Section 37 (2) (a) ACA | Section 37 (2) (b) ACA | Section 37 ACA