Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) An unreported judgment dated 27.02.2020 of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of T.P.Kathiresan (died) and seven others vs. R.Ramadass (died) and five others in CRP.(NPD)(MD).No.2275 of 2011 & CRP (PD) (MD).No.2368 of 2010.

8. Per contra Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP(NPD).No.1441 of 2021 & representing Mr.D.Srinivasaraghavan, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner for the subject issue is not maintainable. According to him, there being an alternate remedy and an inbuilt mechanism provided under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with regard to the issues raised by the petitioner in this civil revision petition, the present Civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. According to him, the second respondent Arbitrator having rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, wherein the petitioner had questioned the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute, the only remedy for the petitioner is to challenge the final arbitral award passed against him in favour of the first respondent as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

12. By order dated 07.02.2019, the second respondent Arbitrator has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties. Infact, as seen from the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP(NPD).No.1441 of 2021 & dated 07.02.2019, the second respondent Arbitrator took the objection of the petitioner with regard to the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction on account of non-existence of arbitration clause and treated the same as an application under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and by the aforesaid order, dismissed the said application. In the order dated 07.02.2019, the Arbitral Tribunal has also observed that the Tribunal initiated settlement talks invoking section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on the mutual consent of the parties and their counsel. The receipt of the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the second respondent Arbitrator under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has also not been disputed by the petitioner as he himself has filed the same in the typed set of documents filed along with this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

15. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which deals with appealable orders also does not permit any appeal rejecting an application filed under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The remedy for an aggrieved party is only to challenge the arbitral award, in case it is passed against him or her in the near future, as seen from section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

16. Under section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP(NPD).No.1441 of 2021 & 1996, it is made clear that a party aggrieved by the rejection of application filed under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal can only challenge the award which may be passed against him or her in the near future under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 07.02.2019 dismissing the application filed under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an Arbitral Award dated 15.07.2021 has also been passed in favour of the first respondent against the petitioner by the Arbitral Tribunal. Admittedly, till date, no application has been filed by the petitioner under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge the said award. Under the Arbitral Award dated 15.07.2021, the Arbitral Tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay the following amounts to the first respondent: