Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

35. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even if the petitioner had any objection about the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator in view of his appointment made by the respondent, such objection could be raised by the petitioner only by filing their appearance before the learned arbitrator and by filing an application in writing in view of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. He submits that though several opportunities were granted by the learned arbitrator as is apparent from the correspondence exchanged between the parties to file statement of case along with documents and to remain present from time to time, the petitioner chose not to file any statement of case or did not raise any objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any such issue of jurisdiction for the first time in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. He submits that since objection about jurisdiction was not raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act before the learned arbitrator by the petitioner, it amounted to waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration Act.

36. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Konkan Railway ppn 16 2.arbp-325.16(j).doc Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2002) 2 SCC 388 and in particular paragraph 21 thereof and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Keti Construction (I) Ltd., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 38 and in particular paragraphs 19 to 25 thereof. He submits that though the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (supra) has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of SBP & Co.Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd., reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618, in so far as the issue decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (supra) about the mandatory requirement of filing an objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act before the learned arbitrator is concerned, that part of the ratio is not reversed. He submits that the petitioner has not shown any good reason as to why the petitioner did not raise such objection of lack of jurisdiction before the learned arbitrator under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

37. Learned counsel for the respondent made an attempt to distinguish the judgments of this Court in the cases of M/s. Reliance Webstone Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s.Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. (supra) on the ground that in both those petitions, the petitioner therein had already raised an objection of jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act whereas in this case, there was no such objection raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

ppn 23 2.arbp-325.16(j).doc

51. In so far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the petitioner did not appear before the learned arbitrator and did not file any specific application under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act and thus cannot be allowed to raise such plea for the first time in this arbitration petition is concerned, it is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner had refused to accept the names suggested by the respondent specifically by writing letters dated 10 th January 2014 and 22nd July 2014 and also the letter dated 4th July 2015 which were addressed by the petitioner to the learned arbitrator specifically raising an issue of jurisdiction. A perusal of Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act indicates that a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence. In my view, several letters addressed by the petitioner raising an issue of jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator exchanged between the parties and also forwarded to the learned arbitrator were in substantial compliance of Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act. Merely because the petitioner had not mentioned Section 16 (2) of the Arbitration Act, in those submissions made by way of correspondence, it cannot be construed that the petitioner had not raised any issue of jurisdiction before the learned arbitrator. All such objections raised by the petitioner were not later than the submission of the statement of defence.