1 ORDER
SHEET APO No.208 of 2014 AP No.656 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.J.P.GLASS INDUSTRIES & ORS Versus PRAMODE KUMAR NATHANI & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Date : 31st October, 2014.
Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra.
Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sabyasachi Sen, ld.
Advocates For the appellant.
Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Ahona Sikdar and Mr.J.Ghorai Ld.
Advocates for the respondent.
The Court :- The short question involved in this appeal as to whether an order of refusal to entertain an application under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be said to be an interim award to invoke section 34 of the said Act of 1996 before the Arbitrator could publish his award.
The learned Single Judge very rightly held, it could not be said to be an interim award.
1 Mr.Sabyasachi Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, would draw our attention to paragraph 51 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mcdermott International Inc.
versus Burn Standard Co.LTD.which is quoted hereunder: “51.
After the 1996 Act came into force, under Section 16 of the Act the party questioning the jurisdiction of the arbitrator question before has the an obligation arbitrator.
to Such raise a the said question of jurisdiction could be raised if it is beyond the scope of his authority.
It was required to be raised during arbitration proceedings or soon after initiation thereof.
The jurisdictional question is required to be determined as a preliminary ground.
A decision taken thereupon by the arbitrator would be the subject-matter of challenge under Section 34 of the Act.
In the event the arbitrator opined that he had no jurisdiction in relation thereto an appeal thereagainst was provided for under Section 37 of the Act.” Mr.Sen would contend, since decision could be a subject matter of challenge under section 34 of the Act, the appellant was within its right to approach the learned Judge on that score and dismissed the application.
2 the learned Judge erroneously We raised.
have In paragraph considered our 51 view, so the question perhaps advanced by the Mr.of that is interpretation of Sen law is misplaced.
Paragraph 51 would rather help him to take this plea when he would feel aggrieved by the award, if any, published by the arbitrator at any stage.
In the present case, the respondents appointed Arbitrator that according to the respondent, the appellant concurred.
The appellant denied such concurrence.
The letters used by the respondent were found to be genuine by the Arbitrator.
The appellant would contend, they did not sign any arbitration agreement that could extend jurisdiction to the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator rejected such plea.
The appellant challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge under section 34 of the Act taking it as interim award.
The learned Judge, in our view, very rightly rejected such contention.
We are of the view, the appellant at the threshold took the plea of jurisdiction.
They categorically contended before the arbitrator, he had no jurisdiction to entertain.
contentions Yet, he without would be prejudice at to liberty his to rights and approach the arbitrator with his defence or else to wait for the award 3 to be passed so that he can challenge the same taking recouRs.to section 34 of the Act.
The appeal thus fails and is hereby without any order as to costs.
(BANERJEE, J.) (ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) dg/ 4 dismissed