In Brief
The Supreme Court was asked whether it could entertain an application to make an arbitral award "Rule of the Court" when the award had been directed to be filed before it by consent of parties. Holding a five-judge bench, the Court resolved conflicting precedents and held that the Supreme Court cannot assume original jurisdiction over arbitration disputes merely by retaining "control" over proceedings or directing the award be filed before it. The competent court to decide objections to the award is the same court that had jurisdiction over the original reference. The Court overruled prior decisions that suggested otherwise, emphasizing that parties retain their statutory right of appeal under the Arbitration Act, and that jurisdiction cannot be enlarged beyond constitutional limits by consent or superior court supervision.", "type": "string" <parameter name="principles">["The term 'Court' under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 means a civil court having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject-matter of the reference and does not include the Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136.", "The Supreme Court can assume original jurisdiction only as provided in Articles 32 and 131 of the Constitution; it cannot assume original jurisdiction in matters of arbitration through interpretation of the Arbitration Act.", "When a superior court appoints an arbitrator or retains control over arbitral proceedings, this does not confer upon it the jurisdiction to entertain objections to the award or to make the award Rule of the Court; that jurisdiction remains with the court competent to entertain the original reference.", "Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the court in which the first application in a reference has been made; this is to avoid jurisdictional conflicts but does not empower a superior court to become a court of first instance.", "The right to appeal is a vested right that accrues to a litigant from the date the lis commences and can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment that expressly provides for such deprivation.", "The Supreme Court cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by assuming that it has retained control or that all contentions can be raised before it; original jurisdiction must be vested by law, not by consent or superior court intervention.", "When an arbitrator is appointed and later directions are issued by a superior court, the jurisdiction to deal with objections and post-award proceedings is determined by the court that had competence over the original reference, not by the superior court's subsequent involvement."]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.