2002 (5) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Financial Reconstruction ('the BIFR') in reference made by the first petitioner under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the SICA'). The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as under : 2. The first petitioner entered into an agreement with the first respondent on 20-5-1989 whereby the first respondent was to execute civil structural works for the composite steel plant of the first petitioner at Malanpur, Gwalior, M.P., at a cost of Rs. 3.90 crores. It appears that disputes arose between the parties during the execution of the work. These were referred to an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the sole arbitrator, Shri Dharni Dhar. The first respondent prepared a statement of claim in which i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, therefore, was not right in rejecting the application of the first petitioner for suspension of the proceedings. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal available to it under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act'). He also submitted that the first petitioner has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. According to him, the agreement and the project were executed within the District of Gohad, Bhind (MP). It was also submitted that the first petitioner had approached t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....austing the alternative remedy. While it is true that the first petitioner filed an application under section 22(4) of the SICA before the Arbitral Tribunal, it is equally true that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code. Any application which is required to be made before the Arbitral Tribunal has to be made under the Act. Therefore, the application could not have been filed under the provisions of the SICA. Obviously, the application though ostensibly made under section 22(4) of the SICA would be one under section 17 of the Act because any application for interim relief has to be made under section 17. Since the Arbitral Tribunal refused to suspend the proceedings, the first petitioner could have filed an appeal und....