IMPORTANT POINT
Arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.

Judgment :-

(1) These special leave applications are directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court refusing to interfere with an order of the Civil Court vacating an interim order of injunction granted by it earlier. The suit in question had been filed for a declaration that there does not exist any arbitration clause and as such the arbitral proceedings are without jurisdiction. The tearned Single Judge of Bombay High Court came to hold that in view of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 read with Section 16 thereof since the arbitral Tribunal has the power and jurisdiction to make rule on its own jurisdiction, the Civil Court would not pass any injunction against an arbitral proceeding.

(2) Mr. Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court need not be inferentially held to be ousted unless any statute on the face of it excludes the same and judged from that angle when a party assails the existence of an arbitration agreement, which would confer jurisdiction on an arbitral Tribunal, the Court committed error in not granting an order of jurisdiction. There cannot be any dispute that in the absence of any arbitration clause in the agreement, no dispute could be referred for arbitration to an arbitral Tribunal. But, bearing in mind the very object with which the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been enacted and the provisions thereof contained in Section 16 conferring the power on the arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction including ruling on any objection with respect to existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, we have no doubt in our mind that the Civil Court cannot have jurisdiction to go into that question. A bare reading of Section 16 makes it explicitly clear that the arbitral Tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction even when any objection with respect to existence or validity of the arbitration agreement is raised and a conjoint reading of subsections (2), (4) and (6) of Section 16 would make it dear that such a decision would be amenable to be assailed within the ambit of Section 34 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned order so as to be interfered with by this Court. The petitioner who is a party to the arbitral proceedings may raise the question of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator as well as the objection on the ground of non-existence of any arbitration agreement in the so-called dispute in question and such an objection being raised, the Arbitrator would do well in disposing of the same as a preliminary issue so that it may not be necessary to go into the entire gamut of arbitration proceedings.

(3) Our interim order stands vacated and these petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.