Substance over nomenclature in leave and licence disputes can defeat arbitral jurisdiction where occupation rights are in issue.

An arbitral award was held unsustainable because the dispute, when examined on the substance of possession, control and contractual terms, was found to involve a leave and licence arrangement rather than a matter within the tribunal's authority as dealt with. The Court held that nomenclature was not decisive and that the real nature and quality of occupation had to be assessed. It further ruled that the jurisdictional objection went to the root of the matter and was not defeated by waiver or estoppel. The award was interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and set aside for want of jurisdiction, leaving the parties to pursue other remedies in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award could be sustained when the dispute raised a jurisdictional objection that the arrangement was in substance a leave and licence relationship and the arbitral tribunal lacked authority to decide eviction and related occupation claims.

Analysis: The agreement, though styled as a business conducting arrangement, was examined on its substance, including the nature of possession, control of the premises, and the surrounding contractual terms. The Court held that nomenclature alone was not decisive and that the real nature and quality of occupation had to be seen. On that basis, the dispute was found to fall within the legal regime governing leave and licence and not to be one the arbitral tribunal could decide in the manner adopted. The jurisdictional objection went to the root of the matter, and the Court declined to accept waiver or estoppel as defeating that objection. The award was therefore liable to be interfered with under the supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Conclusion: The award was set aside for want of jurisdiction, and the petition succeeded. The directions on costs were modified accordingly, while the parties were left free to pursue remedies available in law.

---