Point of Law: It cannot be accepted that order under Section 16 of Act would change its nature upon two different contingencies, that is to say, where order rejects plea of no jurisdiction, it becomes an interim award and where arbitral tribunal allows plea of no jurisdiction, it is not an interim award amenable to challenge under Section 34 of Act before court below and only appealable in terms of Section 37(2)(a) of Act.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

The order rendered on 23.11.2021 in OP(Arb.) No.160/2020, rejecting the objections regarding the jurisdictional bar of the arbitral tribunal, is the subject matter of the instant arbitration appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”).

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners in the OP(Arbitration) and respondents 2 & 3 in the arbitration case before the arbitrator, whereas respondents 1 to 4 herein are respondents 1 t0 4 in the OP(Arb.) and the four claimants in the arbitration case before the arbitrator. The 5th respondent herein is the 5th respondent in the OP(Arb.) and the 1st respondent in the arbitration case before the arbitrator.

3. Heard Sri.C.S.Bissimon Chempankulam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein; and Sri.P.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 herein.

4. There is no appearance for the 5th respondent (partnership firm). In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this arbitration appeal, notice to the 5th respondent will stand dispensed with.

5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Arbitration Request No.42/2016, the disputes between the appellants and the respondents 1 to 4 herein have been referred to arbitral tribunal appointed by this Court in that proceedings. The arbitral tribunal has numbered the arbitration case as Arbitration Case No.2/2016. According to the case projected by the claimants, the matter essentially arises out of certain inter-se disputes between the rival parties, who are partners in a partnership firm. According to the appellants, they have raised certain objections in the written statement filed by them, which, according to them, would affect the very jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal. Later, for the sake of formality, they have also separately preferred an application, stating their objections and that, according to them, it affects the very jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and that the arbitrator may hold that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration claim. The plea was resisted by respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants. The arbitrator, after hearing both sides, has passed order dated 08.09.2018, rejecting the pleas of jurisdictional bar raised by the appellants herein. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein had preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act to set aside the above said order dated 08.09.2018 rendered by the arbitral tribunal in Arbitration Case No.2/2016, whereby the objections regarding the jurisdictional bar have been rejected as above. The Principal Sub Court has numbered the said Section 34 petition as OP(Arb.) No.160/2020. After hearing both sides, the court below has rendered the impugned order dated 23.11.2021, dismissing OP(Arb.) No.160/2020, stating that the above said objections have been rightly rejected by the arbitral tribunal and that no interference is called for in the Section 34 petition. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 23.11.2021 rendered by the court below, dismissing OP(Arb.) No.160/2020, the appellants have preferred the instant arbitration appeal by invoking the provisions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the Act.

6. Some of the main objections raised by the appellants regarding the jurisdictional bar of the arbitral tribunal are as follows; firstly, that there is no valid agreement between the parties; secondly, that even going by the version of the claimants, the place of arbitration is shown as Chennai in the agreement claimed by them, which is in the State of Tamil Nadu. Further, one of the main pleas in the arbitration claim is that the claimants are entitled for a declaration that the respondent partnership firm stands dissolved with effect from 21.02.2015 and that the claimants shall have no liability, whatsoever, relating to the transactions done by the respondents therein. In that regard, the appellants would point out that the Apex Court has