BEDABYAS BARIK Vs. SUKANTI BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code" for brevity) the petitioner (respondent before the sole arbitrator), has challenged the order dated 09.12.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in M.P. No.1/2017 arising out of ARBP No.1/2017 whereby the learned Arbitrator rejected the prayer of the petitioner-respondent to close/terminate the arbitral proceeding on the ground that it is initiated wrongly and illegally.

(2.) Though no provision has been mentioned in the application that has been filed by the respondent, who is petitioner in this revision, it is obvious that this application has been made under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity), which provides for competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction. It is appropriate to take into consider the exact provision:

(3.) A bare reading of this provision reveals that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose, i.e. (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract, and (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.