M/S. UPTRON INDIA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 05-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. \ ,.. 
\ 
... 
MIS. UPTRON INDIA LTD. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
·FEBRUARY 5, 2004 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Arbitration Act, 1940: 
Arbitration-Award-Set aside by appellate authority-Effect of-
Company filing award before High Court for being made rule of the Court- C 
Simultaneously Government challenging the award before appellate authority 
which set aside the award-Consequently, High Court rejecting Company's 
application for making the award as rule of Court-Company challenging 
order of High Court on the ground that it/ailed to take into consideration that 
if order of appellate authority was without jurisdiction, the same being a D 
nullity, award could be made rule of the Court-Held, order of the appellate 
authority could not have been challenged co/laterally in the proceedings 
pending before High Court-It was obligatory on the appellant-company to 
question validity or otherwise of the order of appellate authority before an 
appropriate forum by filing an appropriate application in this behalf-As the 
award had been set aside, High Court was correct in holding that the prayer E 
for making the award a rule of Court could not be granted-Since the award 
has already been remitted to the arbitrator, he is directed to make a fresh 
award. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1712 of 1999. F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.1998 of the Delhi High Court 
in F.A.O. (OS) No. 311 of 1995. 
Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli and Anubhav Kumar for Mis. Manoj 
Swarup"'& Co. for the Appellant. 
Ex. Joseph, Ms. Nidhi Ravindra and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant herein is a company registered under the Indian Companies 
G 
199 
H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A Act. In the year 1988, the appelfant herein entered into an agreement with 
respondent No.2, wherein it was, inte,r alia, agreed that the appellant shall 
maintain the community viewing sets in the seven States of North Eastern 
region, i.e. Assam, Meghalaya, Aruna:::ahal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, 
Mizoram and Tripura. The agreement was for maintenance of 5000 VHF and 
B DR sets for a period of five years. As per the contract, it is alleged that the 
respondent agreed to pay Rs. 66,20,040 annually, which was payable to the 
appellant at the beginning of each calender year and also to raise infrastructure. 
The appellant alleges that they have performed the work on their part, but the 
respondent did not pay to the appellant for the work done by them. It is under 
such circumstances, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator for resolution. 
C The Arbitrator gave an Award dated 18th June, 1990. The appellant tiled the 
said Award before the High Court of Delhi on its original side, for being 
made Rule of the Court. Simultaneously, the respondent preferred an appeal 
before the Secretary to the Government, Ministr.ri of Broadcasting and 
Information. The Secretary, Ministry of Broadcasting and Information set 
aside the Award and remitted the same to the Arbitrator for fresh resolution. 
D After the aforesaid order was passed by the Appellate Authority, the High 
Court on its original side rejected the application of the appellant for making 
the Award as Rule of the Court on the ground that the Award itself has been 
set aside. The appeal preferred before tl~e Division Bench against the judgment 
of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed. It is against the said judgment, 
E the appellant is in appeal before us by way of special leave petition. 
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would. submit that the 
High Court went wrong in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed 
to take into consideration that if the order of the Appellate Authority was 
without jurisdiction, the same being a nullity, the Award could be made a 
F Rule of the Court. The learned counsel would c0ntend that even if the 
jurisdiction of the appellate forum is riot challenged, as no power was conferred 
upon it. to remit the Award to the Arbitrator purported to be in terms of 
Section 16 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, such order would be without 
jurisdiction. 
G 
We find no merit in this submission. The order of the Appellate Authority 
could not have been challenged collarterally in the proceedings pending before 
the High Court. It was obligatory on the appellant herein to question the 
validity or otherwise of the order of th

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