Salar Jung Museum and ors. v. Design Team Consultants Private Limited, O.M.P. (COMM) 44/2017 (Delhi High Court). Decided on May 21, 2020.
The issue which emerged for thought under the watchful eye of the court was that can a protest relating to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator can be raised without precedent for proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, if not raised already before the arbitral tribunal? The Delhi High Court, in the moment case, recognized the proportion set down on account of Lion Engineering v. Territory of Madhya Pradesh, (2018) 16 SCC 758, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that however the supplication with respect to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator being surrounded by a unique resolution had not been taken before the arbitrator, it could be still be encouraged under the steady gaze of the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Delhi High Court held that the test did not depend on any intrinsic absence of jurisdiction in the arbitrator however upon the reference request itself; in such a case, the gathering concerned can't be allowed to take an interest in the arbitration proceedings, challenge the case on merits, and from there on, mention a jurisdictional criticism.
According to the court, the hidden distinction comes from the idea of a consensual dispute goal itself. Indeed, even for a situation where a specific dispute alludes to the arbitrator, and the petitioner from that point looks for mediation of different cases too, if the respondent doesn't protest, it very well may be taken to have consented to present the resulting claims likewise to arbitration. The court likewise noticed that, if there were a legal bar to the accommodation of the extra case, likened to the circumstance in Lion Engineering (supra) (or maybe some other ground relatable to public policy), the circumstance may have been unique. Be that as it may, where the jurisdictional complaint is equipped for a waiver by the influenced party, the inability to raise it before the arbitrator implies agree to the arbitrator's jurisdiction. A gathering accordingly, can't, in such a case, take an interest in the proceedings without challenge and afterward look to attack the legitimacy of the proceedings notwithstanding a horrible honor. The court in this way excused the application for putting aside the honor.
It is likewise relevant to specify that a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court on January 16, 2019, on account of Fitness First India Private Limited v. Feeling Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited., OMP. (COMM.) 202/2016, was likewise confronted with a comparative circumstance wherein in the last phase of correspondence of the judgment in the court, the petitioner asserted that specific charges granted by the arbitrator had no premise since the respondent had not defended the said charges on any premise before the arbitral tribunal. The respondent, per contra, presented that the said charges have been asserted carefully as per the conditions in the arrangement and the equivalent, having not being tested by the petitioner before the arbitrator, can't be tested under the watchful eye of the court in an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court discovered legitimacy in the protests raised by the respondent and held that there is no generous test made to the honor as for the said charges for the respondent and the petitioner having neglected to show up before the arbitrator and challenge the case made by the respondent, can't presently challenge the equivalent based on the absence of specifics for raising such a charge.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.