Jurisdictional objections to arbitration awards must be raised during proceedings, not at execution; failure to do so leads to unenforceable awards.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and consequently, issue an appropriate writ/order/direction thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Learned Commercial Court (District Level) Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

(ii) That any other order/relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.

(iii) That the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner.

2. Facts of the present case are as under:-

(a) The petitioner, a joint venture of ECI and Keystone Infra Pvt. Ltd., and the Respondent entered into a contract on 01.12.2012 in respect of the execution of work of the construction on a two-lane road viz. from KM 287 to 292, KM 322 to 342 and 352 to 400 of NH–63 (Old NH–16) i.e. Bhopalapatnam–Jagdalpur Road.

(b) The petitioner participated in a bid and being the highest bidder, its bid was accepted and a letter of acceptance was issued by the respondent. A contract agreement was signed for the contract price of Rs. 184,54,47,686.69/- on 01.12.2012. The contract was an item rate re-measurable bill of quantity. The construction of the road could not be completed for various reasons within the intended completion period and later it was completed on 30.06.2019. The petitioner raised several claims stating that the delay was not attributable to it.

(c) The petitioner invoked arbitration under Clause 25.3(a) of Special Conditions of Contract vide its letter dated 13.07.2020. The relevant Clause 25.3(a) reads as under:-

“25.3(a) In case of Dispute of difference arising between the Employer and a domestic Contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such disputes or difference shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The parties shall make efforts to agree on a sole arbitrator and only if such an attempt does not succeed and the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3 arbitrators one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contractor and the third Arbitrator to be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the Parties to act as Presiding Arbitrator shall be considered. In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently. the Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Council, Indian Roads Congress.”

(d) The petitioner made an effort to refer the dispute to a sole arbitrator as per the provisions of Clause 25.3(a) and suggested four names. The respondent in its letter dated 10.08.2020 addressed to Shri L.V. Sreerangaraju, requested to act as the Sole-Arbitrator and Shri L.V. Sreerangaraju was appointed as the Sole-Arbitrator recording the mutual consent of both parties. The extract of this letter is reproduced herein below:-

“The above-mentioned Contract Agreement was entered into between the Superintending Engineer, NH Circle, P.W.D, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and M/s. ECI-KEYSTONE (JV), Hyderabad, Telangana.

Certain disputes have arose between the Parties under the Contract, which were not settled amicably, and as such the Contractor vide its letter No. ECI-KEYSTONE/NH- 63/2019/4 dated 30.03.2020 (copy attached for reference) has invoked arbitration as per clause 25.3 of Special Conditions of Contract for adjudication of the disputes through arbitration.

Both the parties have mutually agreed to refer the disputes to Sole Arbitrator as