M/S. Construction India Etc vs Secretary, Works Department, ... on 10 December, 1997
In Ms, Construction India's case (supra), it was held that a mere reference to an office held by an Arbitrator will not
disqualify him from being an Arbitrator after he ceases to hold that office. Objection as to the jurisdiction were withdrawn and thus it indicates conscious acquiescence on the part of the respondents in continued jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction which was conferred on an arbitrator was on account of the consent of the parties to the arbitration agreement. Before the arbitrator, the objection as to jurisdiction of the arbitrator was withdrawn by the respondents. It shows acquiescence on the part of the respondents in the continued jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute. The minutes recorded show that after raising objection, the respondents have withdrawn the same. This would indicate a conscious acquiescence on the part of the respondents in the continued jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Supreme Court also held on similar issue that the State Electricity Board was precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the umpire. A passage from Russell on Arbitration, 17th Edition at Page 215 was relied upon. It is to the following effect: