Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 482 - DELHI HIGH COURTMaintainability of petition - Whether the present petition ought to be entertained in view of the alternate dispute resolution mechanism as provided under OM dated 22.01.2004 (i.e. the PMA). And, whether the petitioner can be permitted to challenge the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority after participating in proceedings before the said authority without protest or any reservation. - Held that:- SAIL preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and pursued its appeal before Shri T.K. Vishwanathan. The contention that SAIL was not aware of the designation of Shri T.K. Vishwanathan cannot be accepted as the same was clearly indicated in the communications issued by the said Authority for holding hearings. A notice for hearing before the Appellate Authority that was issued on 23.02.2010, has been produced by EPIL which conspicously mentions that the hearing is before “T. K. Vishwanathan, Adviser to Minister of Law and Justice, Ministry of law and Justice”. It is also not disputed that Shri T.K. Vishwanathan held a rank equivalent to a Secretary, Government of India. It is also clear that SAIL pursued its remedy before the said Appellate Authority willingly and without any reservation. SAIL filed an appeal against the award of the Sole Arbitrator on 07.04.2008 and the appellate award was passed on 17.02.2011. Notably, SAIL preferred the present petition on 18.12.2012, that is, twenty two months after the appellate award and more than four and a half years after filing its appeal before the Appellate Authority. SAIL’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority has to be viewed in this factual context. SAIL cannot be permitted to impugn the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority in these circumstances. It would be manifestly unfair to EPIL, if SAIL is permitted to do so after having availed of its chance before the Appellate Authority. The principle that the jurisdiction cannot be vested by consent of parties has limited application to alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, principally for the reason that such mechanisms are consensual and aquire their validity from agreement between parties. - Decided against Petitioner.
|