Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

A reading of the above Section go to show that in the guise of an arbitration clause filed under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act, a party to the litigation cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. A party to the dispute, if is decided to object about the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, he has to raise that dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal itself under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act specifically mentions that, a plea that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence; however, a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely M.F.A.No.24247/2012 (AA) because he has appointed or participated in the appointment of an Arbitrator.

9. In the instant case, admittedly, the appellants have not objected the appointment of Sri. Ganesh Rao, retired District Judge as a sole Arbitrator in the matter by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. In addition to that, Pedda Rangappa also participated in the proceedings before the sole Arbitrator and contested the matter. At no point of time he disputed the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Even otherwise, according to Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act, if presumed that he is not precluded from raising such a plea, still it cannot be ignored that originally the present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a civil litigation in O.S.No.290/1986 against the respondent partner Pedda Rangappa before the Civil Judge Court at Ballari for rendition of accounts and for the interest. Admittedly, it is at the contest and the objection of the said Pedda Rangappa himself, the said Original Suit came M.F.A.No.24247/2012 (AA) to be dismissed on the finding that, the partnership agreement involves arbitration clause, as such, the parties are to be relegated to arbitration. It is only thereafter and at the interference of the High Court of Karnataka under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3/1998, a sole Arbitrator came to be appointed. Thus, the said Pedda Rangappa having himself being cause for referring the dispute to arbitration and having participated and contested the matter before the Arbitrator on merit, now cannot say that the said Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the matter.