The jurisdiction for hearing arbitration matters must align with commercial dispute designations; an order from a court without proper jurisdiction is void.

JUDGMENT :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter “the said Act of 1996”). It lays challenge to an order dated April 5, 2023 passed on an application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 being A.P. 831 of 2018, whereby the said application was allowed upon setting aside the award made and published on September 23, 2018, which had been impugned therein.

2. The case run in the application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award is as follows:

(a) The appellant had floated a tender for repair of Wet Basin Flat Gate at main yard on turnkey basis. The respondent participated in the tender process and emerged successful.

(b) Thereafter a letter of intent was issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The said letter of intent was followed by a purchase order indicating the works to be done by the respondent.

(c) The respondent completed the work in terms of the work order but the payments due to the respondent upon completion of the work were not made by the appellant. Representations made by the respondent to the appellant demanding the payments which were due to the respondent failed to fructify.

(d) Feeling aggrieved by the delinquency in contractual payment on the part of the appellant, the respondent approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 18603(W) of 2015.

(e) During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent also approached the West Bengal State Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (hereafter “MSME Council”) under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereafter “the said Act of 2006) on May 11, 2016 since the respondent is an MSME Entity.

(f) Upon the respondent approaching the MSME Council, the said Council issued a notice to the appellant thereby calling upon the appellant to appear before the MSME Council on July 4, 2016 for conciliation.

(g) The writ petition being W.P. No. 18603(W) of 2015 filed by the respondent was ultimately disposed of holding the same to have become infructuous because the respondent had already approached the MSME Council.

(h) While the reference before the said Council was pending for consideration, the appellant went ahead and appointed an arbitrator on September 23, 2016 by invoking the arbitration clause in the work order.

(i) The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by taking out an application under Section 16 of the said Act of 1996 but such challenge was repelled by an order dated February 28, 2017.

(j) The respondent thereafter, approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition being WP 11108 (W) of 2017, seeking an expeditious disposal of the proceedings pending before the said Council. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated April 19, 2017 thereby directing the Council to dispose the plaint made by the respondent in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of the order.

(k) Subsequently, the arbitrator appointed by the appellant herein proceeded with the arbitral proceedings and made and published an award on September 23, 2018 in favour of the appellant.

(l) Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondent approached this Court by filing an application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 which was registered as A.P. 831 of 2018.

3. The said application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 has been allowed by the order impugned in the present appeal.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that the scope of Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 was very narrow and that it was not proper for the Hon’ble Single Judge to interfere with the award in the case at hand when the same did not satisfy any of the conditions mentioned in the said