Parallel arbitral proceedings are impermissible where identical contractual claims are already before a duly constituted tribunal.

Where disputes arising from the same contractual claims are already pending before a duly constituted arbitral tribunal, a second tribunal cannot be constituted for the same subject matter. Parallel arbitral proceedings over identical issues create a risk of conflicting awards and are without jurisdiction. The availability of objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not justify sustaining a second tribunal in these circumstances. Delay in objecting to an engineer's decision or the grant of extension of time does not alter the fact that the merits of the claims remain with the first tribunal. The operative effect is that only the earlier tribunal may continue with adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second arbitral tribunal could be constituted in respect of disputes already pending adjudication before an earlier arbitral tribunal arising out of the same engineer's decisions.

Analysis: The dispute had already been referred to arbitration at the instance of the petitioner, the respondent had participated in that reference, and objections to the earlier tribunal's constitution had already been declined. The agreement contemplated adjudication of disputes through the arbitral mechanism, but not the creation of multiple tribunals over the same claims. The Court held that once an arbitral tribunal is seized of the dispute, the same issues cannot be referred to another tribunal, as that would create parallel proceedings and a risk of conflicting awards. The Court further held that the remedy under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not justify sustaining a second tribunal in these circumstances. The respondent's reliance on delay in objecting to the engineer's decision and on extension of time did not alter the fact that the merits of the claims remained within the jurisdiction of the first tribunal.

Conclusion: The constitution and continuance of the second arbitral tribunal were held to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the second arbitral tribunal constituted at the instance of the respondent was quashed, leaving the parties to pursue the pending arbitration before the earlier tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute arising from the same contractual claims is already pending before a duly constituted arbitral tribunal, a second tribunal cannot be constituted for the same subject matter, as parallel arbitral proceedings over identical disputes are without jurisdiction and impermissible.

---