Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.
M/s International Coil Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd. - Respondent
CR No. 735 of 2019
Decided On : 24-05-2019
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.8 & S.16--Reference to Arbitrator--Eviction Petition--Dispute between landlord and tenant--Landlord referred the dispute to arbitrator in furtherance of clause of arbitration in rent deed--Arbitrator entertained the reference and rejected the contentions of tenant that he being a statutory tenant is to be governed by Rent Laws and matter could not be referred to arbitration--Jurisdiction of Arbitrator to entertain the same challenged--Held;
(i) That proceedings in an Arbitral Tribunal including its decision to decide on its own jurisdiction cannot be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. (Para 15)
(ii) Proceedings of/orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution except when so permitted under the Act itself. (Para 24)
(iii) That even Section 16 does not contemplate any scope for a party to challenge the Arbitral proceedings before passing of the final Award, once the Tribunal has determined that it is possessed of jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. (Para 24)
(iv) High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to the impugned order and the Petitioners are therefore, obligated to await the conclusions of the Arbitral Proceedings, only after which they can challenge any such Award or Order either by referring to Section 34, or to any other specific provisions permitting them to do so under the Act. (Para 25)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.8 & S.16--Reference to Arbitrator--Eviction Petition--Dispute between landlord and tenant--Arbitration Clause in Rent Deed--Arbitrator held it has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute--High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to such order passed by Arbitrator--Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, S.13--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13 (Para 25)
JUDGMENT :
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
This Revision Petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 passed by Shri Manish Makhija, Arbitrator on an Application filed on behalf of the present Petitioner, who is Respondent in the Arbitration Proceedings, in which, it had sought for rejection of the Claim made by it in Arbitration.
2. In the concerned Application (Annexure P-10), the Petitioner had challenged the maintainability of the Arbitration Proceedings as also jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to entertain the same. In substance, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that it is a Statutory Tenant under the Respondent in terms of Registered Lease Deed entered into between the parties on 31.5.2016. As such according to the Petitioner, the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 were applicable to the premises taken on Lease by it, and in view of existence of such Special Legislation to govern their relationship, the matter could not be referred to arbitration. In addition, it was also contended on behalf of Petitioner that the relevant Clause 10 of the Lease Deed had been cleverly inserted to enable the Respondent for unilaterally appointing an Arbitrator of its choice, which was contrary to the principles of justice, equity and fair play as also the principle of natural justice and that in any case, the disputed Claim could not be raised in arbitration, since already a Civil Suit had been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, in which, the Respondent had been restrained from dispossessing the Petitioner from the Demised Premises, and the order was still operative when the Arbitration Proceedings were invoked. Such proceedings therefore, according to the Petitioner were non est and liable to be dropped forthwith.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Arbitrator rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner in its Application.
4. The Revision has been contested on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant, which has at the outset, contended that it is out and out non-maintainable in view of the Statutory provisions of the Arbitration Act, which have the effect of restricting Judicial intervention in Arbitration Proceedings except when specifically permitted in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to be as "the Arbitration Act"), 1996. Even otherwise, it has been contended that the decision of the Ld. Arbitrator in holding that he is possessed of jurisdiction to entertain the Claim in terms of the Arbitration Clause mentioned in the concerned Lease Deed is correct on merits. At this stage, this Court is inclined to first of all consider whether or not the present Revision would itself be maintainable in view of the restriction on Judicial Authorities as provided in the Arbitration Act.
5. Section 5 of the Arbitration Act provides -
6. Before proceeding to consider the implication of Section 5 quoted above, it is also appropriate to advert to Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which pertains to competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. The relevant Section is reproduced below -
(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and
(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.
(2) A plea that the arbitral tribun
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
