Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction on arbitral awards, parties can now file objections before Civil Court

The Supreme Court clarified that it cannot assume original jurisdiction to make an arbitral award a Rule of the Court solely because it retains control over the arbitration proceedings. It held that the competent court to entertain the reference will have jurisdiction over objections and post-award proceedings, not the Supreme Court. The Court overruled previous decisions and granted parties liberty to file objections before the Civil Court within thirty days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entertainability of an application by the Supreme Court for making an arbitral award a Rule of the Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over arbitral proceedings and subsequent applications.
3. Right to appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
4. Interpretation of the term "Court" under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
5. Application of Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
6. Control retained by the Supreme Court over arbitral proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entertainability of an application by the Supreme Court for making an arbitral award a Rule of the Court:
The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether it could entertain an application for making an arbitral award a Rule of the Court when it retains seisin over the arbitral proceedings. The Court examined previous decisions and concluded that the Supreme Court cannot assume original jurisdiction to make an award a Rule of the Court solely because it retained control over the arbitration proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over arbitral proceedings and subsequent applications:
The Court analyzed whether it had jurisdiction to entertain objections to the arbitral award. It referred to previous cases, including *Saith and Skelton* and *Guru Nanak Foundation*, which suggested that the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction if it had control over the proceedings. However, the Court clarified that the competent court to entertain the reference will have jurisdiction over the objections and post-award proceedings, not the Supreme Court.

3. Right to appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940:
The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a valuable statutory right that should not be deprived unless there are cogent reasons. It referred to *Bharat Coking Coal Limited* and *Garikapati Veeraya*, which established that the right of appeal is a vested right and can only be taken away by subsequent enactment. The Court concluded that assuming original jurisdiction by the Supreme Court would curtail the statutory right of appeal provided under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

4. Interpretation of the term "Court" under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940:
The Court examined the definition of "Court" under Section 2(c) of the Act, which refers to a civil court having jurisdiction to decide the subject matter of the reference if it were the subject matter of a suit. The Court found that the interpretation in *Guru Nanak Foundation* and *Saith and Skelton* was incorrect in assuming that the Supreme Court could be the original court for filing the award.

5. Application of Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940:
Section 31(4) of the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court where the first application in a reference is made. The Court referred to *Kumbha Mawji* and *Surjeet Singh Atwal*, which interpreted this provision to mean that the court where the first application is made retains jurisdiction over all subsequent applications. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 31(4) based on control over the proceedings.

6. Control retained by the Supreme Court over arbitral proceedings:
The Court analyzed the concept of control retained by the Supreme Court over arbitral proceedings. It referred to cases where the Supreme Court had issued directions to the arbitrator and retained control. However, the Court concluded that such control does not confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to entertain objections to the award or make it a Rule of the Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overruled the decisions in *Saith and Skelton* and *Guru Nanak Foundation*, stating that they did not lay down the correct position of law. The Court held that the competent court to entertain the reference will have jurisdiction over the objections and post-award proceedings, not the Supreme Court. The appeal was disposed of, and the parties were granted liberty to file their respective objections before the Civil Court within thirty days.

---