M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 22-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R.F. NARIMAN, UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
683
M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
v.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8984-8985 of 2017)
MARCH 22, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R. F. NARIMAN AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.16 and 34 –
Arbitrator passed award in favour of the Appellant – Award was
challenged by respondent-State u/s.34 of the Act before the trial
Court – Respondent sought to amend its objections after three years
which was rejected by the Trial Court – However, same was allowed
by the High Court u/Art. 227 – Appellant submitted that objection
having not been raised u/s.16(2) of the Act before the Arbitrator,
could not be raised u/s.34 of the Act – Respondent-State contended
that legal plea arising on undisputed facts is not precluded by
s.34(2)(b) and that it was not necessary to consider the application
for amendment – Held: Since amendment application not pressed,
the appeal rendered infructuous – There is no bar to plea of
jurisdiction being raised by way of an objection u/s.34 of the Act
even if no such objection was raised u/s.16 – Matter remanded to
the trial Court for consideration of objections u/s.34 of the Act.
MSP Infrastructure Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation Ltd. (2015) 13 SCC 713 :
AIR 2015 SC 710 – Partly overruled.
Case Law Reference
(2015) 13 SCC 713
Partly overruled
  Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8984-
8985 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2014 and Impugned
Order dated 09.03.2015 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal
Seat at Jabalpur  in Writ Petition No. 4559 of 2014 and in Review Petition
No. 04/2015 respectively.
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 683
683
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Naman Nagrath, Rajeev Dhawan, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Parag
P. Tripathi, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Advs.,
Purushaindra Kaurav, AG, Harsh Parashar, Zubin Prasad, Aman Pandey,
Prateek Khandelwal, Shadan Farasat, Arjun Garg, Prashant Kumar,
Saurabh Suman Sinha, Aditya Dev T., M/s. AP & J Chambers, Rahul
Narayan, Shashwat G., Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Jay
Savla, Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhir Mishra, Prabhat Kumar, Petal Chandhok,
Udai Khanna, Rishabh Kapur, Priyash Sharma, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
Ms. Disha Vaish, D.S. Parmar, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Harsh Parashar,
Varun Amar, Shantanu Krishna, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Chandra
Bhushan Prasad, Shivam Singh, Apoorva Srivastava, Ms. Sugandha
Batra, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Chandan Kumar, Arjun Garg, Jay Savla,
Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Prabhat Chaurasia,
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Preetesh Kapoor, Ms. Vishakha, K. Krishna Kumar,
Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ms. Anuradha Mishra,
Ankit Lal, Varun Mohan, Ankit Kr. Lal, Ravin Dubey, Sudhansu Pal,
Nilava Bandhopadhaya, Prateek Khanna, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
        O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The matter arising out of a dispute in execution of a works
contract was referred to the Arbitrator by the High Court on 4.09.2008.
The Arbitrator made his Award dated 10.07.2010 in favour of the appellant.
It was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (“the Act”) before the Seventh Additional District Judge,
Bhopal by the respondent-State of M.P. The respondent sought to amend
its objections after three years which was rejected by the trial Court. On
a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
has allowed the said amendment.
3.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
amendment could not be allowed beyond the period of limitation which
affected the vested rights of a party. It was also submitted that the
objection having not been raised under Section 16(2) of the Act before
the Arbitrator, could not be raised under Section 34 of the Act. In support
of this submission reliance has been placed on MSP Infrastructure Ltd.
vs.  Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. reported in
(2015) 13 SCC 713.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
685
4. Learned Advocate General for the State of M.P. submitted
that the amendment sought is formal. Legal plea arising on undisputed
facts is not precluded by Section 34(2)(b) of the Act. Even if an objection
to jurisdiction is not raised under Section 16 of the Act, the same can be
raised  under Section 34 of the Act. It is not even necessary to consider
the application for amendment as it is  a legal plea, on

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