Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Against the said award an application under Section 34 was taken out before an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court assailing the award on various grounds including the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and make the award. On the latter issue, the case of the appellant has been that under the agreement, the Arbitration Clause also specified manner in which an Arbitrator was to be appointed and the qualification for the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator who was appointed by this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act did not meet such requirements. The other grounds of challenge to the said award inter alia were that the learned Arbitrator had allowed claims on "excepted matters" and further he lacked jurisdiction to award interest there being a positive exclusion Clause on award of interest in the said agreement. Then it has been alleged that claims of the respondent for non-scheduled works were allowed which ought not to come within the scope of the arbitration and are contrary to the agreement. In course of the arbitration proceeding a counterclaim was made by the appellant which was rejected.

10. The decisions in the cases of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka, (supra) Sushil Kumar Mehta (supra) and Sunder Das (supra) relate to orders passed under Indian Succession Act, 1925., Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 respectively and these authorities have been relied on by Mr. Pal for the proposition that a decree or order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and could be challenged at any stage. The other decisions on which reliance was placed all related to proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act). In the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A. Mohammad Yunus (supra) and M.P. Gupta (supra), provisions similar to Clause 64 of the agreement came up for interpretation. In the case of M. P. Gupta, appointment of Arbitrator who did not meet the qualification contemplated in the agreement was challenged at the initial stage, and the Railway Authorities succeeded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in having the appointment of the Arbitrator set aside. In the case of A. Mohammad Yunus (supra) award made by the Arbitrator who was not appointed in terms of the agreement was found to be an award made by quorum-non-judis. Both these decisions, however, relate to proceedings under Arbitration Act, 1940. Similarly, in the case of M. D. Army Welfare Housing Organisation (supra), it was held that an order made by the Arbitrator, who did not have the authority under the law to pass such an order, was vitiated under the principle of coram-non-judice, and would be held to be a nullity. This case also arose out of proceedings under the 1940 Act.

14. In our opinion, it is not so. The main challenge thrown on this aspect was that the Arbitrator was not Gazetted Railway Officer, and that by itself rendered any step taken by him to be a nullity.

15. In a similar situation in the case of Union of India v. Shakambari and Company (supra), an Hon'ble Division Bench had been pleased to dismiss an appeal, sustaining the order of an Hon'ble Single Judge rejecting an application under Section 34 in which an award was assailed on the ground that composition of the Tribunal was not proper. In the case of Krishna Kumar v. Union of India (supra), we have held that the Hon'ble Chief Justice is not strictly bound to appoint an Arbitrator who must have a qualification as agreed upon between the parties, and therefore, if the Arbitrator appointed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice does not have the qualification, his appointment would not be rendered invalid.