LexBHARAT COKING COAL LTD. versus M/S. ANNAPURNA CONSTRUCTION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1124 A BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. ' .. II. M/S. ANNAPURNA CONSTRUCTION (I.A. Nos. 1-2 of 2005 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5647-5648 of 1997) B MARCH 5, 2008 ... [S.B~ SINH~ AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] * Arbitration Act, 1940 - s. 2(c) - Filing of an award by c arbitrator - Appropriate court - On facts, award passed by appointed arbitrator, set aside by Supreme Court since arbitrator did not consider relevant clause of Contract - Another arbitrator appointed who passed an award - Parties agreeing that award be filed before Supreme Court - However, D objections by one of them - On appeal, held: Supreme Court ~ did not and could not retain any control over the proceeding of arbitrator - Award must be filed before the court having requisite jurisdiction - Also, jurisdiction not exercised u/ s.11(6) - By consent of parties also, jurisdiction cannot be E assumed by this Court - Thus, Supreme Court has no ;urisdiction to entertain applications - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.11(6). The 1 respondent and the appellant entered into a .contract. Dispute ar6se between the parties. Arbitration ,.__ F agreement was invoked. An arbitrator was appointed who passed an award in favour of the respondent. The matter came up before this Court arising out of the proceedings for making the said awarci a rule of the Court. This Court set aside the award referring the disputed claims to G another arbitrator since the arbitrator failed to consider some relevant clauses of the contract. The claims were raised before the arbitratpr who passed an award. Before the arbitrator parties agreed that the a_ward would be filed .. before this Court. However, the appellant filed applications H 1124 BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. MIS. ANNAPURNA 1125 CONSTRUCTION " questioning the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the A f- objections filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Disposing of the applications, the Court . HELD: 1.1 Whenever a term has been defined under a statute, the same should ordinarily be given effect to. B Ho~ever, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the .. interpretation clause being prefaced by the words • "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject and context" may in given situations lead this Court to opine t_hat the legislature intended a different mea'ning. c [Para 8] [1129-C-D] State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association and Ors. 2002 (1) SCC 589; Pandey and Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2007 (1) SCC 467 - ·relied on. 1.2 While determining such a question, the court D ~ } ordinarily again must preserve the right ofa party to prefer an appeal. A right of appeal is a valuable right and unless ' there exist cogent reasons, a litigant should not be deprived of the same. It is a statutory right. Ordinarily, although there may be cases to the contrary, the principle E that the right of appeal should not be taken away, should be applied. There might be strong reason to deny the suitor a right of appeal. [Para 9 and 16J [1129-E-F; 1133-G] ··' 2.1 In. the instant case, the matter came up before this F Court whence an arbitrator had already been appointed and an award had been made. An arbitrator was appointed by this Court while setting aside the said award particularly in view of the fact that construction of the contract was in question. The court did. not and could not G retain any control over the proceedings of the arbitrator. Thus, a distinction must be borne in mind in a case where this Court had no control over the proceedings and the ~ case in which control of proceedings of the arbitrator had • J been retained. In the former case, having regard to the definition of the term "court" as contained in Section 2(c) H 1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 3 S.C.R. A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, award must be filed before a ~ court which has the requisite jurisdiction thereover. "" [Paras 12 and 13] [1132-D-F] 2.2 It is also not a case where this Court has exercised its jurisdiction under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As the question of jurisdiction of a Court is involved, by consent of the parties also, jurisdiction cannot be assumed by this Court. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these applications. The Registry is directed to send the records C to the Court of District Judge, Dhanbad who in turn is directed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.