Jurisdictional objections to arbitration must be timely raised; failing to contest the appointment of an arbitrator waives such rights. Claims related to business dealings acknowledged in MoMs fall within the arbitration agreement.

JUDGMENT :

V KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This appeal under filed Section 37 (1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the A&C Act) lays challenge to the judgment dated 20.12.2023 (impugned judgment) passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP(COMM) 266/2021 captioned Techno Aircon Industries Private Limited v. ABB Limited whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the A&C Act impugning the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2019 (impugned award) passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, stated in paragraph no.18 onwards as under:-

“18. The aforementioned MoMs first and foremost reveal an explicit and undeniable admission by Techno of possessing unutilized raw material initially supplied by ABB. Techno not only acknowledged this fact but also committed to returning the excess materials, as well as outlined the schedule for dispatching supplies to projects like Tata Motors Lucknow. Moreover, these MoMs shed light on the enduring business relationship between the parties, indicating that the purchase order dated 11th September, 2008, was merely one component of their broader and ongoing commercial dealings. Thus, Techno‟s engagement and acknowledgment in these meetings, coupled with the absence of substantial challenge to the arbitrator's jurisdiction over these matters, reinforces the view that the ambit of the arbitration agreement extended beyond just one single transaction, and the disputes arising from these broader dealings are indeed arbitrable.

19. Further, as discussed earlier, the Arbitrator's mandate, as per the Court's order of appointment, was to adjudicate „all disputes and differences‟, implying a comprehensive scope of inquiry covering all aspects of the parties' commercial relationship, as detailed and acknowledged in the MoMs. As such, any claims related to the excess raw material and the obligations arising from these MoMs fall within the scope of the arbitral proceedings, as they are intrinsically linked to the parties' overall business dealings. In light of these documents, it is clear that the disputes referred to arbitration extended beyond the 51 MT supplied under the specific purchase order, and included the claims concerning 179.278 MT of raw material, as discussed in these MoMs.

20. Lastly, we must note that there is no cogent refutation to the admissions made in the aforenoted MoMs, which leads to the conclusion that Techno did indeed have the quantity of 179.278 MT of raw material stocked with them, which they had agreed to return. There is also no dispute regarding the rate applied to determine the value of the raw material. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the view taken by the Arbitrator is entirely reasonable and cannot certainly be held to be unconscionable, arbitrary or perverse. No ground is made out for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under any of the grounds specified under Section 34 of the Act to set aside the impugned Award.

21. Dismissed.”

FACTUAL CONTEXT

3. The facts as noted from the records are that the appellant – M/s Techno Aircon Industries Private Limited – is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, which had a contractual relationship with the respondent – M/s ABB Limited – for fabricating the duct profile for respondent’s customers using GSS sheets in coi