This writ petition is filed with a prayer to

quash order dated May 4, 2022 passed by the

learned Arbitrator in A.C. No.86/2016 arising out of

CMP No.501/2016.

2.

Brief facts of the case are, respondent

M/s. MSPL Ltd., has filed its claim for recovery of

money before the learned Arbitrator. In the

proceedings held on May 4, 2022, petitioner¹

requested the learned Arbitrator that the issue

regarding competence of the Arbitral Tribunal, may

be tried as the preliminary issue and the said

request has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

1 Respondent before learned Arbirtrator

3

3.

Shri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior

Advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that:

• the issue relating to jurisdiction of Arbitral

Tribunal has to be decided first by treating it

as a preliminary issue;

• the

learned

Arbitrator

has

passed

the

impugned order in violation of principles of

natural

justice,

without

affording

an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to

substantiate his contention;

• the impugned order was dictated from a ready

draft order and this demonstrates that the

learned Arbitrator is prejudiced against the

petitioner;

• as per respondent's pleadings, the Arbitration

agreement is of the year 2010 and the cause

of action is shown as December 21, 2002.

4.

In substance, petitioner's case is, the

Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to conduct the

4

proceedings and it has rejected petitioner's prayer

to decide it as preliminary issue.

5.

In support of his case, Shri. Ravishankar

has placed reliance on McDermott International Inc.

Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others²; A.

Ayyasamy Vs. A.Paramasivam and Others³; Raj

International Vs. Tripura Jute Mills Ltd.⁴; and

Surendar Kumar Singhal and Others Vs. Arunkumar

Bhalotia and Others⁵.

6.

Shri. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior

Advocate, opposing the writ petition, submitted that

the Arbitration proceedings were initiated in the

year 2013 by filing CMP No.501/2013 in this Court.

Respondent has filed the claim petition on August 1,

2016. Petitioner did not file his Statement of

defence.

He

approached

this

Court

in

2 (2006)11 SCC 181(para 51)

3 (2016)10 SCC 386 (para 12.2)

4 (2008)5 Gauhati Law Reports 347 (paras 19 & 22)

5 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708 (paras 25 & 31)

5

W.P. No.565/2017 decided on March 31, 2022 and

subsequently filed his Statement of defence on April

8, 2022. Respondent's claim is for recovery of

about Rs.38.82 Crores. In the preliminary meeting

held on May 4, 2022, the learned Arbitrator

recorded the terms of reference/issues. Petitioner,

without filing any application under Section 16 of

the Act⁶, sought to consider his prayer.

7.

Shri. Naganand further submitted that

the entire purpose of the Arbitral proceedings are

being frustrated due to the conduct of the

petitioner. The scope of interference in a writ

petition is very limited and needs to be exercised in

exceptional cases.

8.

We

have

carefully

considered

rival

contentions and perused the records.

6 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,('Act' for short)

6

9.

Undisputed facts of the case are, though

the claim petition was filed in 2016, petitioner has

filed his Statement of defence in April 2022 after

approaching this Court in a writ petition. In the

impugned order, it is recorded by the learned

Arbitrator that the learned Advocate for the

petitioner had submitted that the issue regarding

competence of the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to

jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act may be

tried as a preliminary issue.

Section 16 of the Act reads as follows:

16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its

jurisdiction.4

(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own

jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with

respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration

agreement, and for that purpose,4

(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 trib