LexTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. versus M/S. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 791 THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. v . .., .... _ MIS. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 1093of 2006) · SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Power-of Supreme Court to entertain an application for making the arbitral award as Rule of the Court, even if it retains seisin over arbitral proceedings A B c '-- Supreme Court referred matter for arbitration by retired Judge of Supreme Court observing that the arbitral award be.filed before D Supreme Court - Award pass_ed -:- Appellants challenged the said award by filing a petition uls. 34 before the civil court - However, respondents filed affidavit in Supreme Court requesting it to pronounce judgment in terms of the award on the ground that since the Arbitrator was directed to file his award in Supreme Court, the E application for making the award a Rule of the Court must be filed - in Supreme Court, which alone has the jurisdiction to pronounce judgment in terms of the award -Held: In Nav Bharat Construction case, Supreme Court while following a 3-Judge Bench judgment in Mcdermott International case held that since the Arbitrator was directed to file the award in Supreme Court, an application to make F the award rule of the Court, has to be filed in Supreme Court - However, in Bharat Coking Coal case it was held that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by the Court even by consent of the parties and in Associated Contractors case a 3-Judge Bench held that Supreme Court cannot be considered to be a Court within the meaning of s.2(J)(e) of the 1996 Act even if it retains seisin ~ver the arbitral G proceedings - In view of difference of opinion in relation to entertainability of an applica~ion by Supreme Court for making the award as Rule of the Court, matter is ·referred to larger Bench - Arbitration Act, 1940 - s.2(c). · H 791 792 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 $.C.R. Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1.1 In Nav Bharat Constr11ction Company case, Supreme Court while following a three-Judge Bench judgment in Mcdermott International INC case held that since the Arbitrator was directed to me the award in this Court, an application to make B the award rule of the Court, has to be filed in Supreme Court. (Para 4) (794-D-EJ c State of Rajas than vs. Nov Bharat Constr11ction Company (2) 2010 (2) SCC 182 : (2010) 1 SCR 312 ; Mcdermott, International INC. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and .. Others 2005 (10) SCC 353 - referred to . . . , -1.2 In Bharat Coking Coal Limited case, Supreme Court held that tlie Court ordinarily must reserve right of a party to prefer an appeal. A right to appeal is a valuable right and unless D there exists cogent_ reasons, a litigant should not be deprived of the same. It was further held that jurisdiction cannot_ be assumed. by_ the_ Court even by consent of the parties. In Associated Contractors a three-Judge Bench, held. that the Supreme Court cannot be considered to be a Court within the meaning of Section E 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration arid Conciliation Act, 1996 even if it retains seisin o;ver the arbitral proceedings. In. this judgment, the view taken in the cases of Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. and G11r11 . Na'nak Foundation was doubted wherein it was held that where an Arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court itself and the Supreme Court retains seisin over the arbitration proceedings, F the Supreme Coprt would be 'Court' for the purpose of Section. 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (Para 5( (795-A-C) . ' - . G H Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. Annap11rna Construction (2008) 6 SCC 732 : (2008] 3 SCR 1124 ; State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Associated Contractors (2015) 1 ' . . SCC 32 : (2014) 10 SCR 426 ; State of MP. vs. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 702 : (1972) 3 SCR 233 ; ·Guru Nanak Fo11ndation vs. Rattan Singh and Sons (1981) 4 SCC 634: (19821 1 SCR 842- referred to. .,',. . THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. v. · MJS HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Case Law Reference 2oos (10) sec 3S3 referred to Para4 (20101 1 SCR 312 . referred to Para4 [2008) 3 SCR 1124 referred to Paras [2014) 10 SCR 426 referred to Paras , [1972) 3 SCR 233 referred to Para S. (19821 1 SCR 842 referred to Paras CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1093 of2006. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2002 of the High Court 793 A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.