LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 403 : 2025 INSC 48 State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. R.K. Pandey and Another (Civil Appeal No. 10212 of 2014) 09 January 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI, Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the enforceability of the ex-parte awards against the employer-State Government and the principal of the medical college, when the employer objected the authenticity of the arbitration agreement relied on by the employee. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ex-parte arbitral awards – Enforcement by employee, when denial of the authenticity of the arbitration agreement by employer – Service dispute by the employee against the State Government and the government hospital where he was employed as regards age of superannuation – Writ petition remained pending for 12 years, thereafter was withdrawn – Year before, the employee initiated arbitration proceedings against the State Government and the principal of the medical college – Suit for reference filed which was later withdrawn without any decision on merits with the two sole arbitrators appointed by the employee, suo moto taking up the arbitration proceedings and pronouncing the two awards, for an amount of around Rs.46 lakhs with interest against the State and the Principal of the Medical College – Thereafter, employee sought enforcement of ex-parte awards – Employer objected the authenticity of the arbitration agreement relied on by employee – However, the courts below dismissed the objections – Correctness: Held: Arbitration agreement is sine qua non for arbitration proceedings, as arbitration fundamentally relies on the principle of party autonomy-right of parties to choose arbitration as an alternative to court adjudication – Existence of the arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for an award to be enforceable in the eyes of law – * Author 404 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports On facts, arbitration proceedings were a mere sham and a fraud played by employee, by self-appointing/nominating arbitrators, who have passed ex-parte and invalid awards – Clear case of lack of subject matter jurisdiction – So-called arbitration agreement nowhere available on the records of either the Municipal Corporation or the State – Employee did not file the original agreement since he was not in possession of the same, nor is he a signatory and party to the arbitration agreement – Hospital and the Governor did not endorse any such agreement – Arbitration Agreement is not referred to in the indenture of the transfer executed – No evidence to show the existence of the arbitration agreement, except a piece of paper, which is not even a certified copy or authenticated copy of the official records – Notwithstanding that the claims made by employee were ex-facie and clearly barred by limitation as per s.3 of the Limitation Act 1963 rw s.43 they have been allowed – Thus, ex parte awards set aside and to be treated as null and void and non-enforceable in law – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 20-25] Case Law Cited Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Others [2024] 1 SCR 743 : (2024) 5 SCC 481; Central Organisation of Railway Electrification v. ECI PIC SMO MCPL (JV), a Joint Venture Company, 2024 INSC 857 – referred to. List of Acts Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act 1963. List of Keywords Enforceability of ex-parte awards; Authenticity of the arbitration agreement; Ex-parte arbitral awards; Age of superannuation; Arbitration proceedings; Arbitration agreement; Lack of jurisdiction; Certified copy or authenticated copy of official records; Unilateral appointment of arbitrator by employee; Barred by limitation; Jurisdiction; Execution proceedings. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10212 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2012 of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in FAFO No. 352 of 2012 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 405 State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. R.K. Pandey and Another Appearances for Parties Ankit Goel, Vikas Bansal, Nikhil Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants. Mrs. Deepika Mishra, Abhishek Misra, Ms. Abha Jain, Jaivir Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjiv Khanna, CJI Delay condoned. 2. This appeal arises from an order dated 28.02.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.