PINKI DAS GUPTA Vs. PUBLICIS INDIA COMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sections 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), mainly founded on the plea that the arbitration proceedings against the petitioner were initiated, based upon the consent of the Advocate, Shri P.K. Mittal, who was not given any authority to accord consent for participation of the petitioner in the arbitration proceedings.

(2.) The petition avers as under :-

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the erstwhile Directors of Madhyam Enterprises. Mr. Kapur while refuting the plea of the petitioner about not giving mandate to Mr. Mittal has placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. Mittal and Mr. Sushil Sharma, the auditor of the company whose director, the petitioner is, who supported the plea that such mandate was given to Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate, However, he has raised a preliminary objection that the Court may assume that the mandate was not given as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus proceed to determine his preliminary objection. He has raised the preliminary issue based upon the plea that Section 5 of the Act limits the extent of judicial intervention except as specified in part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further submitted that failure or impossibility to Act contemplated by Section 14 presupposes the existence of a mandate which mandate cannot terminate if it did not exist in the first place. He has further submitted that in any case it is not open to the petitioner to even question the arbitrator's jurisdiction except by raising of a plea under Section 16 of the Act which permits the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. He has further raised a plea based upon the provisions of Section 34 (2) (a) (iii) & 34 (2) (a) (v) that objection could be raised under these subsections against the award. The relevant Sections 14, 16, 34(2)(a)(iii) & (v) of the Act read as follows:-