Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.