LexSREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED versus TUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 933 SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED v. TUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 15036 of2017) SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.25(a) - Arbitral tribunal appointed with the consent of the parties, directed the respondent-claimant to file its statement of claim - Statement of claim A B c not filed by respondent -Arbitral tribunal tem1inated the proceedings uls.25(a) - Application filed by respondent before arbitral tribunal praying for recall of order terminating the proceedings, stating the reasons for non-filing of the statement of claim - Appellant questioned the maintainability of said application on the ground that arbitral tribunal has become functus officio in view of temiination D of the proceedings u/s.25(a), hence the arbitral tribunal cannot recall its order terminating the proceedings - Arbitral tribunal accepted the preliminary objection raised by appellant and rejected respondents application holding that in view of the order terminating the proceedings, he cannot pass an order recommencing E the arbitration proceedings - Revision petition filed by respondent, allowed by High Court which held that arbitral tribunal has power to recall its own order and remitted the matter back to arbitral tribunal to decide the application filed by respondent on merits - On appeal, held: Arbitra/ tribunal does not become functus officio after passing order u/s.25(a) - There is no lack of jurisdiction in arbitral tribunal to recall the earlier order, terminating the proceedings, on sufficient cause being shown - Jn the instant case, arbitral tribunal committed error in holding that it has no jurisdiction F to recall its order terminating the proceedings u/s.25(a) - Arhitral tribunal to consider the application filed by respondent for recall G of order terminating the proceedings. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss.23(1), 25(a) - Non-filing of statement of claim by claimant within the time as contemplated u/s.23(1) - Arbitral Tribunal if obligated to terminate the proceedings -Held: On sufficient cause being shown by a 933 H 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. A claimant, even though the time to file the statement of claim u!s.23(1) has expired, it is not obligatory for the arbitral tribunal to terminate the proceedings u!s.25(a). Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Proceedings under - Nature of - Held: Arbitration is a quasi judicial proceeding, B equitable in nature or character which differs from a litigation in a Court. c Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitral Tribunals - Constitution of - Discussed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, I 996 - Object of enactment - Discussed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitral Tribunals - · Procedural review - Power of - Held: A quasi-judicial authority is vested with the power to invoke procedural review. D Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Termination of proceedings u!s. 25(a), if covered u!s.32(2)(c) - Held: Cl. (c) of sub.sec.(2) of s.32 contemplates two grounds for termination, i.e.,(i) where arbitral tribunal find~ that the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or (ii) impossible- Howeve1~ s.25 contemplates a situation where arbitration proceedings have not E been started as the claimant fails to file his statement of claim - Thus, the eventuality as contemplated uls.32 shall arise only when the claim is not terminated u!s.25(a) and proceeds further - There.fore, the words 'unnecessary' or 'impossible' as used in s.32(2)(c) cannot be said to be covering a situation where F proceedings are terminated in de.fault of the claimant uls.25(a). Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.9, 1'.l 3- Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendant - Applicability of, to arbitration proceedings - Arbitral tribunal appointed with the consent of the parties - On the first sitting of the arbitral tribunal, it directed the G respondent-claimant to file its statement of claim - Respondent neither present on the next date nor filed the statement of claim - Further time granted by arbitral tribunal - Respondent did not appear on the next date as well nor filed the statement of claim - Arbitral tribunal terminated the proceedings uls.25(a) - Held: Principles underlying Or.9, d 3 can be invoked by the arbitrator - H - SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED v. TUFF 935 DRILL
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.