2018 (3) TMI 2055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Prabhat Kumar, Petal Chandhok, Udai Khanna, Rishabh Kapoor, Priyash Sharma, Abha R. Sharma, Disha Vaish, Dhirendra Singh Parmar, Sujeeta Srivastava, Varun Amar, Shantanu Krishna, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Shivam Singh, Apoorva Srivastava, Sugandha Batra, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Chandan Kumar, Prabhat Chaurasia, Hemantika Wahi, Preetesh Kapur, Vishakha, K. Krishna Kumar, Mishra Saurabh, Swarupama Chaturvedi, Anuradha Mishra, Ankit Lal, Varun M., Ankit Kumar Lal, Ravin Dubey, Sudhansu Pal, Nilava Bandyopadhyay and Prateek Khanna, Advs. ORDER 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The matter arising out of a dispute in execution of a works contract was referred to the Arbitrator by the High Court on 4.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Advocate General also submitted that observations in M/s. MSP Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), particularly in Paragraphs 16 and 17 do not laid down correct law. 5. We find merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the State. We proceed on the footing that the amendment being beyond limitation is not to be allowed as the amendment is not pressed. 6. We do not see any bar to plea of jurisdiction being raised by way of an objection Under Section 34 of the Act even if no such objection was raised Under Section 16. 7. We may quote the observations from M/s. MSP Infrastructure (supra): 16. It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first place, there is nothing to warrant the inference that all objections to the jurisdiction of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of whatever nature must be taken at the stage of the submission of the statement of defence, and must be dealt with Under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. However, if one of the parties seeks to contend that the subject matter of the dispute is such as cannot be dealt with by arbitration, it may be dealt Under Section 34 by the Court. 17. It was also contended by Shri Divan, that the newly added ground that the Tribunal under the Arbitration Act, 1996 had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question because the jurisdiction lay with the Tribunal under the M.P. Act of 1983, was a question which can be agitated Under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. This provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugh, it cannot be said that the upholding of a state law would not be part of the public policy of India, much depends on the context. Where the question arises out of a conflict between an action under a State Law and an action under a Central Law, the term public policy of India must necessarily be understood as being referable to the policy of the Union. It is well known, vide Article 1 of the Constitution, the name 'India' is the name of the Union of States and its territories include those of the States. 8. Both stages are independent. Observations in Paragraphs 16 and 17 in MSP Infrastructure (supra) do not, in our view, lay down correct law. We also do not agree with the observation that the Public policy of India does not r....