Expected Matter--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator.

2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.2064 of 2009 (O &M)
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd through its Manager & Anr.
v.
Dharampal & Ors.
{Decided on 14/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Expected Matter--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1994, S.4 & 34--Objections--Expected Matter--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator--Dispute of short supply of rice which is part of agreement--Matter has to be decided by Managing Director and not by Arbitrator. (Para 5 & 6)

Language of S.8 is peremptory in nature

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Civil Revision No. 4773 of 2008
M/s Magma Leasing Limited & Ors.
v.
Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 07/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ex-parte.
IMPORTANT POINT
Arbitration--Agreement--Once the execution of agreement between the parties containing agreement clause was admitted by trial Court, it was required to refer the matter to Arbitrator--Trial Court not required to go into the legality or otherwise of the same.
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.8--Arbitration agreement--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Once the execution of the agreement between the parties containing the arbitration clause was admitted by trial Court it was required to refer the matter to the arbitrator--Trial Court not required to go into the legality or otherwise of the same--Trial Court, went into the legality or otherwise of agreement and recorded observations that at the time of execution of such an agreement once of the parties being in a greater bargaining position, generally drafts the terms which suit most, and go against other party which is in a weaker bargaining position--Held, these observations were not warranted while deciding application as to whether the matter was to be referred to Arbitrator or not--Order impugned liable to set aside.
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.8--Language of S.8 is peremptory in nature--In cases where there is an arbitration clause in agreement, it is obligatory for Court to refer parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing to be decided in the original action after such application is made except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator--The language of S.8 is clear that if there was any objection as to the applicability to facts of the case, the same will have to be raised before concerned arbitral tribunal--Civil Court should not embark upon an enquiry in regard to the application of arbitration clause to facts of the case. (P.8)

----------

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Sections 31(3) and 34(4)

Arbitration award - Reasoned award

The requirement of reasons in support of the award under Section 31(3) is not an empty formality. It guarantees fair and legitimate consideration of the controversy by the arbitral tribunal. It is true that arbitral tribunal is not expected to write judgment like a court nor it is expected to give elaborate and detailed reasons in support of its findings but mere noticing the submissions of the parties or reference to documents is no substitute for reasons which the arbitral tribunal is obliged to give. Howsoever brief these may be, reasons must be indicated in the award as that would reflect thought process leading to a particular conclusion. To satisfy the requirement of Section 3 1(3), the reasons must be stated by the arbitral tribunal upon which the award is based; want of reasons would make such award legally thawed, in what we have discussed above, it cannot be said that High Court was wrong in observing that no reasons have been assigned by the arbitral tribunal as to whether the period of completion extended by the employer for 18-1/2 months was due to reasons not attributable to the claimant. However, in our view, the High Court ought to have given the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to give reasons. This course is available under Section 34(4) of the Act 
Matter remitted to arbitral tribunal.