The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the appropriate stage, and the findings of the arbitrator on the point of jurisdiction, if not challenged, are based on sound principles of law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Arbitration Appeal No.2 of 2018 has been filed for the following relief:

“That the appellant herein prays for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Misc. Arbitration Case No.03/2010 whereby and whereunder the said learned court has been pleased to set aside the award dated 19.03.2007 passed by Shri R.D. Roy retired Chairman-cum-Managing Director (in sort CMD) Western Coalfields Limited (in short as WCL) (Sole Arbitrator) on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Arbitration Application No.25/03 alongwith other analogous cases being A.A. No.26, 27 and 28/03 vide order dated 04.11.2003 was pleased to appoint Director (Technical) Project and Planning Division, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, but the said Director (Technical) appointed Shir R.D. Roy, former CMD (WCL) as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties without appreciating the fact that said Shri R.D. Roy was appointed by the said departmental arbitrator appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi and the Respondent CCL subjected to the jurisdiction of the said sole Arbitrator Shri R.D. Roy without any objection whatsoever.”

Arguments of the Appellant

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the impugned order to submit that the arbitral award has been set aside on the sole ground that although the High Court had appointed Director (Technical) Project and Planning Relation, CCL Ranchi, as the Arbitrator, but the Director (Technical) operation CCL appointed another person namely R.D. Roy, Former CMD as arbitrator by issuing a letter to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and such appointment was in violation of the order passed by the High Court dated 04.11.2003.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned court below has recorded that such appointment of arbitrator was in violation of clause 95 of contract agreement read with order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but the said point is essentially a point of jurisdiction which was to be raised at an appropriate stage in terms of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and no such point of jurisdiction was raised at the appropriate stage.

5. He has further submitted that no such ground was raised in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rather such point was simply argued by the respondent - CCL before the learned court below and the award has been set aside solely on this ground. The learned counsel submits that the grounds set forth in the arbitral award has been quoted in the impugned order itself and none of the grounds are referable to this point.

6. He has also submitted that the circumstances under which Sri R.D.Roy had become the arbitrator is itself is a question of fact which should have been raised before the learned arbitrator at the relevant stage. He has further submitted that the perusal of the award shows that the jurisdiction point was raised in connection with the very exercise of the power of the High Court for appointment of Arbitrator and from perusal of paragraph VI 3 of the award, it appears that in the light of provision of 16 (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a ruling was made by the learned arbitrator that the learned arbitrator has full jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, but the ruling under Section 16(2) was neither challenged by the CCL before the learned court below nor the same was even annexed along with the petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the instant case, the period of claim was for the period from 01.09.1997 to 30.06.1998 and the dues was to the extent of Rs. 1