G H QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LIMITED versus JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LIMITED

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 272 · Decided: 29-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LIMITED
v.
JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020)
APRIL 29, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.4, 16, 20 and 34
– Four agreements entered into between the parties – Dispute –
Sole arbitrator appointed – In one of the agreements the venue was
Kolkata but proceedings were conducted at Delhi – Litigation ensued
both before the Courts at Kolkata and Delhi – Common ex-parte
award passed – Respondent filed petition u/s.34 in the Court of
District Judge, Alipore – Dismissed – Order set aside by High Court
– Held: Arbitration in question is a domestic and an institutional
arbitration where Construction Industry Arbitration Association
(CIAA) was empowered to and did nominate the Arbitrator – It is
not as if there were completely different mechanisms for appointment
of Arbitrator in each of the agreements – Only distinction is that as
per one of the agreements, the venue was to be at Kolkata –
Specification of “place of arbitration” may have special significance
in an International Commercial Arbitration, where the “place of
arbitration” may determine which curial law would apply –
However, in the present case, the applicable substantive as well as
curial law would be the same – Further, respondent neither
participated in arbitration proceedings nor objected to jurisdiction
of the Arbitrator, thus deemed to have waived all such objections –
Now precluded from raising any objection as to the venue of
arbitration – Conclusion drawn by the Court at Alipore was correct
– Order of High Court set aside while that of the Court at Alipore is
restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the present case the arbitration in question
is a domestic and an institutional arbitration where CIAA was
empowered to and did nominate the Arbitrator. It is not as if there
were completely different mechanisms for appointment of
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 272
272
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
Arbitrator in each of the agreements. The only distinction is that
according to one of the agreements the venue was to be at
Kolkata. The specification of “place of arbitration” may have
special significance in an International Commercial Arbitration,
where the “place of arbitration” may determine which curial law
would apply. However, in the present case, the applicable
substantive as well as curial law would be the same. It was possible
for the respondent to raise submissions that arbitration pertaining
to each of the agreements be considered and dealt with separately.
It was also possible for him to contend that in respect of the
agreement where the venue was agreed to be at Kolkata, the
arbitration proceedings be conducted accordingly. Considering
the facts that the respondent failed to participate in the
proceedings before the Arbitrator and did not raise any
submission that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction or that
he was exceeding the scope of his authority, the respondent must
be deemed to have waived all such objections. [Paras 22-23]
[288-A-D]
1.2 The respondent is now precluded from raising any
submission or objection as to the venue of arbitration, the
conclusion drawn by the Court at Alipore while dismissing
Miscellaneous Case No.298 of 2015 was quite correct and did
not call for any interference. The High Court was in error in setting
aside said Order. In any case, the fact that the cause title showed
that the present appellant was otherwise amenable to the
jurisdiction of the Alipore Court, could not be the decisive or
determining criteria. [Para 24][288-E]
Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and
Others (2002) 3 SCC 572 : [2002] 1 SCR 1136 - relied
on.
Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited (2017)
9 SCC 729 : [2017] 10 SCR 285 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 10 SCR 285
referred to
Para 18
[2002] 1 SCR 1136
relied on
Para 20
QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LIMITED v. JANARDAN
NIRMAN PVT. LIMITED
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2378
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2019 of the High Court
at Calcutta in appeal bearing No. CAN 10094 of 2018.
Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv., Shashank Manish, Ms. Manasi Chatpalliwar,
Ms. Prerita Aggarwal, Ms. Twinkle Kataria, Yash Kumar, Abhipsit
Mishra, Arjun S.B., Mridul Godha,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Kuriakose Varghese, V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash, Ms. Isha
Gha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.