Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The respondent submits that the petitioner ought to have made an application under Section 16 and not indicated the challenge as to the arbitrators authority to receive the matter in its counter-statement. In support of such argument, the respondent places the judgments reported at (Konkan Railway Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Rani Construction Private Ltd.) and (2005) 8 SCC 618 (SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr.). Though the Rani Construction judgment is no longer good law in view of the Patel Engineering case, the respondent has relied on paragraph 21 of the Rani Construction and paragraph 47(x) of the Patel Engineering case to suggest that for a challenge of such nature, it is imperative that the challenger makes an independent application under Section 16 of the Act before the arbitral tribunal. The respondent has emphasised on the expression left to be decided under Section 16 appearing in the Patel Engineering case. There is no merit in such contention urged by the respondent. Section 16 requires a party questioning the arbitrators authority to make the challenge at the earliest stage and not later than the filling of its counter-statement. Section 16 also contemplates a situation where a challenge may be made even after a counter-statement is served, but gives the arbitrator the discretion to decide whether such question may subsequently be raised. Section 16 does not prescribe that a challenge may be made only by a separate application. If the arbitrators authority is questioned in the counter-statement, that would suffice for Section 16, for the challenge would be contained in the counter-statement and would be made simultaneously with the counter-statement and not later than the filing of the counter-statement.