TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the arbitrator had jurisdiction to enter upon the reference. (ii) Whether the objection to the award and arbitration agreement was barred by limitation. (iii) Whether the award and the decree in terms thereof could be sustained on merits.
Issue (i): Whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the arbitrator had jurisdiction to enter upon the reference.
Analysis: A valid arbitration agreement under Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 requires a written agreement showing mutual assent to submit disputes to arbitration. Clause 20 of the contract merely contemplated consequences if a matter was referred to arbitration and did not itself amount to an agreement to arbitrate. Clause 22 provided only a contractual dispute-resolution mechanism through the Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Government, and likewise did not satisfy the statutory requirement of an arbitration agreement. The State Government could not, under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, foist arbitration on the parties in the absence of such agreement or mutual consent.
Conclusion: No valid arbitration agreement existed, and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction; this issue was decided in favour of the Appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the objection to the award and arbitration agreement was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The objections were filed in response to the application for filing the award in court and specifically challenged the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and the award. Such objections fell within the period prescribed for challenging the filing of the award, and the Act did not require any particular form for raising the jurisdictional objection. The later reply did not extinguish the timely objections already raised.
Conclusion: The objection was not time-barred and could be examined on merits; this issue was decided in favour of the Appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the award and the decree in terms thereof could be sustained on merits.
Analysis: The respondent had participated in the public tender with full knowledge of the reserve price and accepted the contract at the quoted amount. After securing the contract, it could not resile from the agreed tender conditions and seek reduction of the reserve price. The attempt to alter the concluded tender bargain was impermissible, and the award proceeded on a footing inconsistent with the sanctity of the tender process. Since the arbitration itself lacked jurisdictional foundation, the award and the decree based on it were unsustainable.
Conclusion: The award and the decree could not be sustained; this issue was decided in favour of the Appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court held that the reference to arbitration was unlawful, the award was jurisdiction, and the decree drawn in terms of the award could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: An arbitration award cannot be enforced where the reference is not founded on a valid written arbitration agreement showing mutual consent, and participation in the proceedings does not confer jurisdiction where the arbitrator lacked authority ab initio.
TaxTMI 
