POORAN CHAND NANGIA versus NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 08-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

POORAN CHAND NANGIA 
A 
v. 
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. 
OCTOBER 8, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
Arbitration : 
Arbitrator-Appointment of-Award challenged as without jurisdiction C 
after accepting awarded sum-Maintainability-Work contract-Contract 
providing for reference of any dispute to sole arbitration of General 
Manager or Dy. Manager, in case former is not available-On a dispute 
having arisen between ihe parties Dy. General Manager entered into 
arbitration and awarded a certain amount to contractor who accepted the D 
· same-Later, the contractor challenged the award as without 
jurisdiction and a nullity inasmuch as instead of General Manager, 
the Dy. General Manager entered into the reference-Held, contractor 
having submitted unequivocally to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 
and also having accepted the awarded amount without any reservation, 
cannot challenge the award-General Manager was appointed as sole E 
arbitrator, but since contractor expressed an apprehension of getting 
justice from him, Dy. General Manager entered into reference-Since the 
reference was made in terms of the contract and the General Manager was 
not available, the Dy. General Manager was competent to enter into the 
arbitration. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.97 of the Madhya Pradesh G 
High Court in Misc. A. No.116 of 1996. 
Vijay Kumar for Ms. Sangeeta Kumar' for the Appellant. 
K.N. Bhat and Ghanshyam Joshi for the Respondent. 
531 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant herein entered into an agreement with the respondent-
National Fertilizers Limited, for construction of roads, bridges/culverts, 
pedestrain roads and sewerage etc. The agreement was a written one. It 
B appears that the dispute has arisen between the appellant and the respondent, 
as a result of which the appellant moved to the Court for appointment of 
an Arbitrator. The Court appointed a sole Arbitrator in terms of clause 59 
of the contract, which provided resolution of the dispute by an Arbitrator. 
It appears that the Deputy General Manager (Materials), Vijaypur entered 
C into the reference and submitted his award on 9th November, 1992 to the 
District Judge, Guna. The appellant herein accepted the award and received 
a sum of Rs. 69,524,04. He, however, filed an objection before the Court 
of the District Judge, Guna, that t3e award is without jurisdiction, inasmuch. 
as instead of the General Manager, who was appointed as . the sole 
D Arbitrator, the Deputy General Manager (Materials) entered into the 
reference and, therefore, the award given by the Deputy General Manager 
(Materials) was without any jurisdiction and is a nullity. The said objection 
was rejected by the Court on the ground that the appellant having accepted 
the award, it was not open to him to challenge the same on the ground that 
the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction. The appellant thereafter preferred an 
E appeal before the High Court. The High Court also agreed with·the view 
taken by the Civil Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said 
judgment of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Only two questions 
F which arise for our consideration are : (I) whether once the appellant 
having accepted the award, is it open to him to challenge the same on the 
ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction and, (2) whether the Deputy 
General Manager (Materials) was competent or has jurisdiction to enter 
into an Arbitration. 
G 
So far as the first question is concerned, it is not disputed that the 
appellant had received the money which was due to him under the award 
and once the appellant had submitted to· the award unequivocally and 
without reservation, it is not open to him to challenge the award. We have .. 
H looked ~to the record and find that the appellant had submitted unequivocally 
·t 
) 
P.C. NANGIA v. NATIONALFERTILIZERSLTD. 
533 
to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. He also accepted the awarded amount A 
without any reservation. Had the appellant desired to challenge the award, 
he could have reserved his right to do so, but no such reservation was made 
in the letters sent by him. In this view of the matter, there remains no 
manner of doubt about the fact that the appellant had submitted to the 
award and it does no

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