2004 JTR(SC) 1029
2005 Supp ArbLR 21 ; 2005 10 SCC 353
Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.-Appellant
Versus
BURN STANDARD CO. LTD. AND OTHERS-Respondents
IA No.2 in Civil Appeal No. 4492 of 1998,
Decided on September 8,2004
Advocates appeared
Dipankar Gupta, Senior Advocate (O.P. Khaitan, Anil Bhatnagar and Ms Bharti Badesra, Advocates for O.P. Khaitan & Co., Advocates) for the Appellant;
Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate (Rudraman Bhattacharya and Ms Shipra Ghose, Advocates) for the Respondents.
Where a court appointing an arbitrator explicitly directs that the award and all subsequent applications be filed in that specific court, such court retains the jurisdiction to hear petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Act
Referred
:ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT
: S.8, S.34, S.2(e)
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34 and 2(e) - Jurisdiction for filing objection petition - Where the court appointing the arbitrator has explicitly directed that the award be filed in that court and that any application necessary during or after the arbitration proceedings be filed only in that court, the objection petition under Section 34 must be filed in that specific court. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent objector contended that, pursuant to the statutory provisions, the petition should be heard by the High Court (Original Side). However, the initial order passed by the court while appointing the arbitrator had specifically mandated that the arbitrator file the award in that court and that any subsequent applications be filed exclusively in that court.
Findings of Court:
The court held that in light of the specific clauses in the appointment order requiring the award and all subsequent applications to be filed in the court that appointed the arbitrator, the objection petition under Section 34 could have been filed only in that court.
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be heard by the High Court or the court that appointed the arbitrator and explicitly directed that all subsequent filings be made before it.
Ratio Decidendi: Specific directions issued by a court at the time of appointing an arbitrator regarding the forum for filing the award and subsequent applications override general jurisdictional claims, making that specific court the proper forum for petitions under Section 34.
Result: Petition set down for hearing on merits.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent objector contended that, pursuant to the statutory provisions, the petition should be heard by the High Court (Original Side). However, the initial order passed by the court while appointing the arbitrator had specifically mandated that the arbitrator file the award in that court and that any subsequent applications be filed exclusively in that court.
Findings of Court:
The court held that in light of the specific clauses in the appointment order requiring the award and all subsequent applications to be filed in the court that appointed the arbitrator, the objection petition under Section 34 could have been filed only in that court.
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be heard by the High Court or the court that appointed the arbitrator and explicitly directed that all subsequent filings be made before it.
Ratio Decidendi: Specific directions issued by a court at the time of appointing an arbitrator regarding the forum for filing the award and subsequent applications override general jurisdictional claims, making that specific court the proper forum for petitions under Section 34.
Result: Petition set down for hearing on merits.
ORDER
1. This IA is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent applicant (objector) submits that in view of the provisions contained in Section 34 read with Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petition under Section 34 deserves to be heard by the Calcutta High Court (Original Side). The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant (opponent) disputes the correctness of this proposition.
3. In the order dated 28-8-1998 passed by this Court appointing the d arbitrator, it was made clear that:
"9. The learned arbitrator shall file the award in this Court.
10. Any application which may become necessary to be filed during or after the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, shall be filed only in this Court."
4. In view of the abovesaid clauses, we are of the opinion that the objection petition under Section 34 could have been filed only in this Court.
5. Let the petition be set down for hearing on merits.
6. The learned counsel for the parties seek time for making the submissions.
7. Adjourned.
8. The learned counsel for the objector submits that the objector proposes to file an application seeking an amendment in the objection petition. Let that application be filed within two weeks. The application shall be considered on its own merits when filed. Liberty to file reply in two weeks thereafter.
Court Masters