Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURTChallenging the partial award given by the Arbitration Tribunal - Whether against the order of partial award an appeal is maintainable directly u/s 37 of the of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) Or Not - Jurisdiction by the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act - HELD THAT:- An appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 37 only lies if there is an order passed u/s 16(2) & (3) of the Act. Section 16(2) & (3) deals with the exercise of jurisdiction. The plea of jurisdiction was not taken by the appellant. It was taken by the respondent in order to meet their counterclaim. But it was not in the context of the fact that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, it was in the context that this question of counterclaim was no more open to be decided for the simple reason that all the issues which had been raised in counterclaim Nos. 1 to 10 had already been settled in the minutes of meeting and it was recorded that no other issues to be resolved in 1st and 3rd contracts. Therefore, we fail to understand how the question of jurisdiction was involved in the matter. In fact it was in the context of the fact that the entire counterclaims have already been satisfied and settled in the meeting that it was concluded that no further issues remained to be settled. In this context, the counterclaims filed by the appellant was opposed. If any grievance was there, that should have been by the respondent and not by the appellant. It is only the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal after considering the counterclaim vis-a-vis the minutes of the meeting. Therefore, there was no question of jurisdiction involved in the matter so as to enable the appellant to approach the High Court directly. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction in the present controversy did not arise because the counter-claim was opposed by the respondent-SAG as the same has since been stood settled. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that all the counter-claims stood covered by the decisions of the minutes of meeting though it was initially opposed by the respondent-SAG that it was not arbitrable or the Tribunal could not go into counter-claim, despite that it examined on the merit of the matter and on the merits the Tribunal disposed of the counter-claim by giving partial award. We fail to understand how can the appellant-NTPC can raise the question of jurisdiction and bring its case u/s 16(2) & (3). We are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is correct, appeal was not maintainable u/s 37(2) of the Act before the High Court and there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
|