2014 (2) TMI 1423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inary service and courier show that respondents have refused service. Since the respondents have chosen not to appear, I am proceeding to decide the appeal. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the impugned order of the court below dated 26.11.2011 which has accepted the objections of the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his matter. This is all the more so because before the trial court the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and Ors. 2002 II AD (S.C.) 299 : (2002) 3 SCC 572 was cited and which holds that objection as to jurisdiction of the arbitrator has to be necessarily taken before the arbitrator by filing of an application under Section 16 of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... agreement with the same. Thus it is no longer open to contend that, under Section 16, party cannot challenge the composition of the arbitral tribunal before the arbitral tribunal itself. Such a challenge must be taken, under Section 16(2), not later than the submission of the statement of defence. Section 16(2) makes it clear that such a challenge can be taken even though the party may have parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondents did not appear before the arbitrator resulting in an ex-parte Award and therefore the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Narayan Prasad Lohia (supra) is not applicable. There cannot be a more perverse reading of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment by the court below in the case of Narayan Prasad Lohia (supra) inasmuch as whether the Award is ex-parte or contested. Section 16 of....