Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ameyas Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a common order passed by the learned sole arbitrator. The arbitrator had held that certain claims made by the appellant in paragraphs 41(i), 41(v)(a) to 41(v)(l), 42, 43, 44.1, 44.2, 44.3, and prayers in paragraph 49(a) and (b) were beyond the scope of the arbitral reference and that he had no jurisdiction to decide them. The background involves a joint venture between respondent No.1 (PBA Infrastructure Ltd.) and respondent No.2 (Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd.) named Prakash-Atlanta Joint Venture (PAJV), which was awarded a contract by NHAI. PAJV sub-contracted the work to the appellant under an agreement dated 23rd August 2001. The appellant later gave up this sub-contract, and the parties entered into a partnership deed on 1st July 2002 (AAP). PAJV appointed AAP as a sub-contractor on 5th July 2002. On 1st November 2004, the appellant retired from the partnership, and the other partners dissolved the firm. MOUs were executed on 6th and 24th November 2004. Disputes were referred to an arbitrator, Mr. Shadilal Chopra, who passed an award on 14th March 2007. The appellant challenged this award under Section 34, and on 9th December 2011, the High Court set aside the award by consent and appointed Hon'ble Justice Shri S.N. Variava (Retired Supreme Court Judge) as the new arbitrator. Before the new arbitrator, the respondents filed applications under Section 16 challenging the jurisdiction to entertain certain claims. The arbitrator allowed those applications, leading to the present appeal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no infirmity in the arbitrator's order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's decision that the disputed claims were beyond the scope of the reference.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction of Arbitrator - Scope of Arbitral Reference - Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The appellant challenged the arbitrator's order holding that certain claims were beyond the scope of reference. The High Court held that the arbitrator correctly applied the principle that claims not covered by the reference cannot be adjudicated. The court found no error in the arbitrator's decision and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned arbitrator erred in holding that certain claims made by the appellant were beyond the scope of the arbitral reference and that he had no jurisdiction to decide them.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned arbitrator is upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of arbitrator
- Scope of arbitral reference
- Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
