Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award Despite Composition Challenge — Validity of Even Number of Arbitrators Affirmed. Respondents Failed to Object in Time, Waiving Their Right.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between family members regarding their businesses and properties, leading to an agreement to resolve their differences through arbitration. The parties initially appointed Mr. Pramod Kumar Khaitan and Mr. Sardul Singh Jain as arbitrators, resulting in an award on October 6, 1996. Subsequently, the first and second respondents filed applications in the Calcutta High Court to set aside the award, arguing that the arbitration was invalid due to the appointment of two arbitrators, which contravened the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court agreed and set aside the award, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the mandatory provision regarding the number of arbitrators could be waived. The court noted that while Section 10 prohibits an even number of arbitrators, it is a derogable provision. The court emphasized that parties must raise objections regarding the composition of the tribunal before the arbitral tribunal itself, as per Section 16. Since the respondents did not object in time, they were deemed to have waived their right to challenge the award. The court ultimately set aside the High Court's judgments and upheld the arbitration award, directing the matter to be placed before a two-judge bench for further consideration of other aspects.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Composition of Arbitral Tribunal - Validity of Even Number of Arbitrators - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 10, 16 - The court held that Section 10, which prohibits an even number of arbitrators, is a derogable provision. The respondents failed to raise an objection to the composition of the tribunal within the stipulated time, thus waiving their right to object (Paras 8-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a mandatory provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be waived by the parties.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Calcutta High Court, upheld the arbitration award, and referred the matter for further consideration by a two-judge bench.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Waiver
  • Composition of Arbitral Tribunal
  • Judicial Intervention
  • Grounds for Setting Aside Award
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2002 LawText (SC) (02) 142

Appeal (civil) 1382 of 2002

2002-02-20

G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan, S.N. Variava

Narayan Prasad Lohia

Nikunj Kumar Lohia & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding family businesses and properties resolved through arbitration.

Remedy Sought

Setting aside the arbitration award.

Filing Reason

Claim of invalidity due to even number of arbitrators.

Previous Decisions

The Calcutta High Court set aside the award, which was appealed.

Issues

Whether the mandatory provision regarding the number of arbitrators can be waived. Whether the respondents waived their right to object to the composition of the arbitral tribunal.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the composition was valid and the respondents waived their right to object. Respondents contended that the arbitration was invalid due to the appointment of two arbitrators.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a derogable provision, and failure to object to the composition of the arbitral tribunal within the prescribed time results in a waiver of the right to challenge the award.

Judgment Excerpts

The parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number. A party who knows that any requirement under the arbitration agreement has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration shall be deemed to have waived his right to so object. The question still remains whether Section 10 is a non-derogable provision.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside the arbitration award, which was initially challenged by the respondents.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Assessee-Bank's Claim on Rediscounting Charges Under Interest-tax Act. The court affirmed that rediscounting charges paid to IDBI did not constitute chargeable interest under Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974.
Related Judgement
Tribunals National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeals Against Liquidation Orders. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to direct liquidation due to the failure of the Successful Resolution Applicant to implement the resolutio...