Arbitration jurisdiction objections must be decided by the tribunal first, with courts barred from staying proceedings prematurely.

Statutory references treated as arbitration under the 1996 Act attract the Act's limited court interference regime, so jurisdictional objections to the Facilitation Council's proceedings are to be decided first by the arbitral tribunal under section 16. The text explains that section 5 curtails judicial intervention except where expressly permitted, and that the civil court cannot stay the arbitration by examining the merits or the tribunal's jurisdiction in advance. It also states that an alleged absence of notice under section 21 is itself a matter for the tribunal and cannot, by itself, justify judicial suspension of the arbitral process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to stay proceedings before the Facilitation Council when the dispute was referable to arbitration under the 1996 Act and the arbitral tribunal was competent to rule on its own jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the alleged absence of notice under section 21 of the 1996 Act could justify the High Court's interference with the arbitral proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to stay proceedings before the Facilitation Council when the dispute was referable to arbitration under the 1996 Act and the arbitral tribunal was competent to rule on its own jurisdiction.

Analysis: The reference before the Council was treated as an arbitration under the 1996 Act by virtue of the special statute and the deeming fiction created by section 6(2), reinforced by section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the 1996 Act. In matters governed by Part I, section 5 curtails judicial intervention except where expressly permitted. The validity of the reference and the Council's own jurisdiction were matters for the arbitral tribunal under section 16, which empowers the tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction and on objections going to the root of that jurisdiction. The civil court could not examine the merits of the claim or restrain the arbitration on that basis.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings before the Council.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged absence of notice under section 21 of the 1996 Act could justify the High Court's interference with the arbitral proceedings.

Analysis: The objection based on section 21 was not raised before the High Court, and in any event the question whether a notice under that provision was required, and whether it operated as a condition precedent, was itself a matter for the Council to decide. Such an objection could not furnish a ground for the High Court to intervene and suspend the arbitral process.

Conclusion: The alleged want of notice under section 21 did not justify the stay ordered by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The restraint order passed by the High Court was unsustainable, the decision of the civil court was restored, and the appeal was allowed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute is statutorily referable to arbitration under the 1996 Act, the arbitral tribunal must first decide jurisdictional objections, and courts cannot stay the arbitration except where the Act expressly permits intervention.

---