HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED versus M/S. NICCO CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 20-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 579 
~ 
HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED 
A 
v. 
MIS. NICCO CORPORATION LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5630 of 2008) 
MAY 20, 2009 
B 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. 
~ 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 21(1)(e}, 34 
and 37(1 )(b) - Arbitration award - Petition uls. 34 challenging c 
the award - Petition held as not maintainable by Single Judge 
of High Court - Appeal u/s. 37 also dismissed as not 
maintainable by Division Bench of High Court - Held: Petition 
and the appeal were not maintainable - Matter remitted to the 
competent civil court as envisaged uls. 2(1)(e). 
D 
~ 
A petition was filed by the appellant u/s. 34 of 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the 
award passed by the sole arbitrator. Single Judge of High 
Court dismissed the same as not maintainable on the 
ground that the petition shoutd have been filed before 
E 
appropriate court as defined u/s. 2(1)(e) of the Act. The 
appeal thereagainst u/s. 37 was also dismissed by the 
~ 
Division Bench of High Court, holding that neither the 
petition u/s. 34 nor the appeal u/s. 37 were maintainable. 
Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The application u/s. 34 ~of Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996, is to be filed before a court which 
... 
is empowered and has jurisdiction to entertain and 
G 
decide such objection. The expression 'Court' is defined 
under the provision of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, meaning 
the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, 
and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary 
579 
H 
580 
SUPREME COURT RE~ORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
-
)=
f, 
~ 
A original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the 
, 
questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration. 
Section 37 of the Act applies only when the pre-
conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. It is not correct 
to say that since the Single Judge refused to set aside 
B the arbitration award, therefore an appeal could be 
preferred by the appellant as envisaged u/s. 37 (1 )(b}, as 
the petition filed u/s. 34 was dismissed· on the ground of 
maintainability of the petition and not on the ground by 
refusing to set aside the arbitration award. [Para 6] [582-
c B-H; 583-A] 
2. The matter and the petition filed u/s. 34 is remitted 
~ 
to the civil court, competent to hear and decide the same 
as envisaged u/s. 2(1)(e) of the Act. The matter is pending 
for a very long period and shuttling from one court to 
D other court. Therefore, the court to which the matter is 
\ 
entrusted to by the District Judge shall make all endeavor 
...,. 
to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 
)r. 
[Paras 6 and 7] [583-C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
E 5630 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.1.2008 of the High 
'"'" 
I 
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in an Arbitration Appeal No._ 22 
·-
of 2007 under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation 
t 
F Act, 1996. 
,.., 
D. Roy Chowdhury, Nandini Sen (for Deba Prasad 
Mukherjee) for the Appellant. 
Rahul Gupta, P~kai Addy (for Chiraranjan Addey) for the 
Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. 
_ DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is 
....., 
directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned 
Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court taking up the appeal 
H and disposing of the said appeal by his Order dated 4.1.2008. 
HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED v. NICCO CORPN. 
581 
I'' 
LTD. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] 
.. 
"' 
The appellant herein filed a petition under Section 34 of the A 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the legality 
of the Award dated 28.9.2006 passed by the Sole Arbitrator 
with a prayer to set asipe the same. The learned Single Judge 
before whom the petition was filed held the same to be not 
maintainable. On appeal filed the Chief Justice held that such 
B 
an appeal is also not maintainable. 
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the 
parties. 
3. It is disclosed from the records that an application was c 
filed by the respondent herein before the Jharkhand High Court 
at Ranchi under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for appointment of an Arbitrator 
to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes arising between 
the parties in terms of the arbitration agreement. The Jharkhand 
D 
High· Court entertained the said application and appointed 
~ 
Justice P.K. Sarkar, wh

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