Waiver of arbitral jurisdiction objections bars later challenge when no timely objection is raised before the tribunal.

A party that knows of a jurisdictional or venue defect in arbitration but fails to raise a timely objection before the tribunal is deemed to have waived that objection under the arbitration framework. The text states that where the respondent did not participate in the proceedings, did not object to the tribunal's authority, and allowed an ex parte award to be made, it could not later challenge the place of arbitration or the tribunal's jurisdiction after the award. It further notes that a later attempt to reopen the Section 34 dismissal on venue-based jurisdictional grounds was not sustainable once the objection had been forfeited.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent, by not raising objections before the arbitral tribunal, waived its right to object to the venue and jurisdiction of the arbitration; (ii) Whether the respondent could later challenge the order dismissing the Section 34 proceeding on the ground that the Alipore court had jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent, by not raising objections before the arbitral tribunal, waived its right to object to the venue and jurisdiction of the arbitration.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement and the Act permitted objections to be raised before the tribunal within the time contemplated by Section 16. Section 4 provides that a party who knows of non-compliance with a requirement under the arbitration agreement or a derogable provision and yet proceeds without timely objection is deemed to have waived the right to object. The respondent did not participate in the arbitral proceedings, did not raise any plea that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction or that it was acting beyond the scope of its authority, and allowed the proceedings to culminate in an ex parte award. In such circumstances, the objection to the place of arbitration could not be raised for the first time after the award.

Conclusion: The respondent had waived its right to object to the venue and jurisdiction of the arbitration, and was precluded from raising that objection later.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent could later challenge the order dismissing the Section 34 proceeding on the ground that the Alipore court had jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a domestic institutional arbitration in which the same curial and substantive law applied, and the only material difference in the agreements was the stated venue in one of them. The tribunal was appointed through the agreed institutional mechanism. Once the respondent failed to object in the arbitral proceedings, the later challenge to jurisdiction based on the cause title and venue issue could not displace the finding that the Section 34 court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter. The order dismissing the Section 34 proceeding was therefore correct and the High Court ought not to have interfered.

Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal order could not succeed, and the restoration of the Alipore court's order was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's interference was set aside, and the order dismissing the Section 34 proceeding for want of merit was restored because the respondent had forfeited the right to object to arbitration venue and jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that knows of a jurisdictional or venue defect in arbitral proceedings but does not raise a timely objection before the tribunal is deemed to have waived that objection and cannot resurrect it after the award.

---