Reasoned adjudication of jurisdiction and limitation objections is mandatory for quasi-judicial arbitral bodies under supervisory review.
A statutory Industry Facilitation Council performing arbitral and quasi-judicial functions is amenable to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Its power to entertain references, decide jurisdictional objections, conduct proceedings, and make awards brings it within the scope of supervisory review. When dealing with threshold objections on limitation and jurisdiction, the Council must record reasons; a cryptic or non-speaking order rejecting such objections cannot be sustained. In supervisory jurisdiction, such an order is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.
Issues: (i) Whether the Industry Facilitation Council is a tribunal amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the Council's cryptic order rejecting preliminary objections on limitation and jurisdiction, without recording reasons, could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether the Industry Facilitation Council is a tribunal amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the special enactment and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 showed that the Council was not a mere administrative body. It was empowered to entertain references, decide jurisdictional objections, conduct proceedings as an arbitral forum, and make awards. The Council therefore answered the description of a body discharging quasi-judicial functions.
Conclusion: The Council is a tribunal amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (ii): Whether the Council's cryptic order rejecting preliminary objections on limitation and jurisdiction, without recording reasons, could be sustained.
Analysis: The objections raised at the threshold concerned jurisdiction and limitation, both of which required reasoned adjudication. A body exercising quasi-judicial powers must record reasons while dealing with such objections, particularly where the decision affects the course of arbitral proceedings. The impugned order rejected the objections in a summary manner and proceeded to continue the proceedings, without adequate reasons.
Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded to the extent that the Council's orders were quashed and the matters were remitted for fresh consideration after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body performing quasi-judicial arbitral functions must give reasons while deciding preliminary objections on jurisdiction and limitation, and a non-speaking order on such objections is liable to be set aside in supervisory jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
