M/S. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus M/S. RANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 30-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
MIS. RANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 
JANUARY 30, 2002 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, 
UMESH C. BANERJEE, S.N. VARIAVA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 
C 
Section I I-Order passed by Chief Justice or his designate nominating 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
an Arbitrator-Held not adjudicatory in nature-Such an order held not 
amenable to jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136-UNCJTRAL 
Model Law held not a guide to interpretation of Act. 
The apvointment of Arbitratbrs by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 
1996: 
Clause 7-Requirement of giving notice upon other party to arbitration 
to show cause why nomination of arbitrator should not be made-Held bad-
Amendment suggested. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 
Special Leave Petition-Order amenable ta-Must be an adjudicatory 
order-Order passed by Chief Justice under Section 11 of Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996 nominating and Arbitrator held not adjudicatory. 
The decision by a Bench of two Judges in Ador Samia case namely, 
that the order of the Chief Justice or his designate in exercise of the power 
under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nominating 
an Arbitrator is an Administrative order and thus not amenable to 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 was affirmed by a 
Bench of three Judges in Konkan Railway case**. Therefore, a Bench of 
two Judges referred to a larger Bench the decision of three Judges for re-
consideration***. Hence these appeals. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that (i) provisions 
contained in Section 11 indicated that Chief .Justice or his designate had 
728 
-
.... 
.... 
,._ 
~-
~ 
} 
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPN. LTD."· RANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 
729 
to perform adjudicatory function (ii) section 16 of the Act enabled the A 
arbitral tribunal to decide on the width of its jurisdiction but it could not 
decide whether or not an arbitrator had no jurisdiction because he had 
.., .+ 
been appointed by the Chief Justice or his designate even though the period 
of thirty days of the receipt of the request to do so had not elapsed; this 
was an issue which had to be decided by the Chief Justice or his designate B 
and (iii) under Clause (7) of the appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief 
Justice of India Scheme, 1996 the affected parties had to be given show 
cause notice which implied that, on their showing cause, the issues they 
raised would be decided by the Chief Justice or his designate. 
"' 
The Attorney-General submitted that (i) The Chief Justice or his c 
designate under Section 11 performed neither an adjudicatory function 
~ 
nor they were exercising the power of the State; (ii) Sections 12 and 13 
applied even to an arbitrator who had been nominated by the Chief Justice 
or his designate under Section 11; (iii) The competence of the arbitral 
tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 was not confined 
to the width of its jurisdiction but extended to deciding whether it had D 
any jurisdiction at all. 
.,. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. The order of the Chief Justice or his designate under 
Section II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nominating an E 
arbitrator is .not an adjudicatory order and the Chief Justice or his 
designate is not a tribunal. Such an order cannot properly be made the 
subject of a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136. [749-F) 
**Konkan Railway Corporation and Ors. v. Mahul Construction Co., 
F 
[2000) 7 sec 201, affirmed. 
2. Article 136 empowers this Court to grant special leave to appeal 
from any judgment, decree, sentence or order in any cause or matter 
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. For an 
order properly to be the subject of a petition for special leave to appeal G 
under Article 136 it must be an adjudicatory order, an order that 
adjudicates upon the rival contentions of parties, and it must be passed 
_, 
by an authority constituted by the State by law for the purpose in 
discharge of the State's obligation to secure justice to its people. 
[744-H; 745-A; 747-Cj H 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A 
*Ador Samia Private Limited v. Peekay Holdings and Ors., (1999) 8 
SCC 572; ***Konkan Railway Corpn. ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. 
Ltd. [2000] 8 SCC 159; Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma 
... ~ 
and Anr. [1965]

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