VISA STEEL LTD Vs. DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Courts and tribunals in this country-and Judges and officers manning them-do not have omnibus authority to right any perceived wrong. The contours of their authority are defined either by the statute under which they operate or the business that is allocated. The present challenge is fashioned under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the petitioner insists that the order dated November 1, 2011 passed by the arbitrator is an arbitral award within the definition of section 2(2) of the Act of 1996. At any rate, the petitioner contends that it is an interim award and as an interim award is included within the definition of an award in the Act, it is amenable to challenge directly under section 34 of the Act.

(2.) Some of the essential facts need to be noticed before the question of the authority of the Court to entertain the challenge is assessed. Following a request by the petitioner herein under section 11 (6) of the Act, the arbitration Judge of this Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement and there were live disputes to go to a reference - only so much is trusted to the arbitration Judge of this Court, the task of naming of the arbitrator or arbitrators is assigned elsewhere. Following the adjudication of the matter by the arbitration Judge, to the extent the adjudication was necessary in the light of the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., 2005 8 SCC 618, the matter went elsewhere for the naming of the arbitrator. It appears that an affidavit was used by the respondent at such stage, though the only question relevant then was as to the personnel of the arbitrator or the composition of the arbitral tribunal and nothing more.

(3.) The arbitrator was appointed and the statement of claim Tiled by this petitioner in the reference. The respondent herein lodged its counter statement where matters pertaining to an altogether different contract between the parties, containing a separate arbitration agreement, were made part of a counter-claim. The petitioner herein objected to such matters pertaining to another agreement being carried to the reference by the respondent in course of its counter-claim. It does not appear that a written application in such regard was filed by the petitioner herein but the objection was squarely taken and it was on the objection that the arbitrator rendered a finding which has been assailed as an interim award in the present proceedings.