Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 1016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
M/s JMC Projects (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2020 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 4789 of 2019]
Decided On : 10-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.V. Vishwanathan, Rishabh Sancheti, Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari, Suyash Rawat, K. Paari Vendhan.
For the Respondents: Prashant Kumar, Saurabh S. Sinha.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 16(2) - Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Restoration of arbitration award - Higher court set aside impugned judgment asserting that if no objection to arbitration jurisdiction was raised timely, annulment of the award is unwarranted. (Paras 22-26)
(B) Legal principle affirmed - An award made under the jurisdiction of arbitration is not to be annulled solely on grounds of jurisdiction objection if such objection was not timely raised. (Paras 22-27)
Facts of the case:
This appeal concerns the restoration of an arbitration award from 2011, where objections to jurisdiction had not been raised within the stipulated time.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court ruled that the earlier acknowledgment of the award should stand and the prior impugned judgment was correctly set aside.
Issues: The key issue was whether the award could be annulled based solely on jurisdictional objections not raised timely.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without a timely objection concerning arbitration jurisdiction, the award remains valid and enforceable.
Result: Appeal allowed and impugned judgment set aside.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has shown us our order dated 08.03.2018 in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Another vs. M/s. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, Civil Appeal No. 974 of 2012 (being the lead case) and has pointed out paragraph Nos. 22 to 27 thereof which are quoted herein-below:
“C.A. No. 2751 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No. 11615/2012, C.A. No. 2753 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No. 11617/2012, C.A. No. 2754 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No. 11618/2012, C.A. No. 2755 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No. 11619/2012, C.A. Nos. 2756-2757 of 2018 @ SLP (C) Nos. 11633-11634/2012, C.A. Nos. 2758-2759 of 2018 @ SLP (C) Nos. 11631-11632/2012 & C.A. Nos. 2760-2761 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No. 11628-11629/2012:
.........................................
.........................................
22. We do not express any opinion on the applicability of the State Act where award has already been made. In such cases if no objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitration was taken at relevant stage, the award may not be annulled only on that ground.
23. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
C.A. No. 2616 @ SLP (C) No. 35641/2011:
24. Leave granted.
25. In view of order passed in C.A. No. 2751 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No. 16615/2012, no objection having been raised by the respondents in terms of Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at appropriate stage within the time stipulated, the award could not have been annulled.
26. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the award is restored.
27. It is, however make it clear that this order will not debar proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
3. It is clear that in the present case, an Award has already been passed which is dated 07.01.2011.
4. This being the case, and following the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2018 is set aside. The Section 34 proceedings will continue with all objections that may be raised but excluding the objection as to the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
5. The matter stands disposed of accordingly.
