RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW,

RAILMAJRA, S.B.S NAGAR

Alternative Dispute Resolution

COMPOSITION AND JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL

Submitted by Shivangi Dhir

Roll No. 17134

B.A. LLB (Hons) 5th Semester

Submitted to Mr. Sukhwinder Singh

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project involves a huge amount of work, research and dedication. Still implementation
would not have been possible if I did not have the support of many individuals and the institute.
Therefore I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all of them.

First of all I am thankful to my institute Rayat College of Law, Railmajra for their
infrastructural support and for providing guidance to mold in the project. I am also grateful to
the Principal of the University Dr. Monika Sharma for her support and guidance in preparing
this project.

Last but not the least I am also grateful to my mentor and guide Assistant Professor Mr.
Sukhwinder Singh for providing this interested topic to prepare a project upon and providing
in with some pertinent inferences which proved to be of great help in moulding this project.
Without his superior knowledge and experience, the project would like in quality of outcomes,
and thus their support has been essential.

Nevertheless, I would also like to thank my peers for providing assistance in preparing this
project in times of need.

2
 INDEX

S. No. Particulars Page no.

1 Introduction 5

2 Definition of Arbitration 6

3 Composition of Arbitral Tribunal 7

4 Jurisdiction 10
5 11
Competence of the arbitral tribunal

6 15
Jurisdiction for enforcement of the arbitral awards

7 16
The appeal of arbitral awards

8 17
Conclusion

3
 TABLE OF CASES
S. No. Case Law Page No.
1. N.P Lohia vs N.K Lohia[ 9
2. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd vs Rani Construction Pvt Ltd 9
3. Renusagar Power Co Ltd Vs GE Co 10
4. ONGC vs Saw Pipes Ltd 10
5. Union of India vs. M/s. East Coast Boat Builders & Engineers 12
Ltd.
6 Nav Sansad Vihar Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (Regd.) vs. 12
Ram Sharma and Associates
7. Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. vs. Tata Finance Ltd 12
8. Jawaharlal Burman vs. Union of India 13
9. Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raymon and Co. (India) Ltd 13
10. Jaikishan Dass Mull vs. Luchhiminarain Kanoria & Co. 13
11. Heyman vs. Darwins Ltd 14
12. Olympus Superstructures vs. Meena Vijay Khaitan, 14
13. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd 14
14. Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. NEPC India Ltd. 15
15. Brijendra Nath vs. Mayank, 16

4
 COMPOSITION AND JURISDICTION OF
ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

Introduction

An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international
commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as also to define the law
relating to conciliation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

In international commercial arbitration the arbitral tribunal plays a very important and
a decisive role in the adjudication of the dispute. A commercial dispute can go to arbitration
on the basis of an arbitration agreement between the disputing parties to submit the dispute to
resolution by arbitration, where an arbitrator or a tribunal of arbitrators is appointed and has
been given the legal authority to act by the parties.

Arbitration was conceived as a procedure to avoid the troubles faced in the procedure
of civil litigation in courts. In India, it subsisted early in the guise of panchayats, which
comprised people who were asked to determine on matters presented before them, and their
verdicts were conceded by the parties to the dispute. The British made the first and foremost
use of the concept of arbitration for in the Bengal regulations of 1772 and 1813 provisions
related to the arbitration of disputes were applied to immovable property and the Arbitration
Act of 1899 was repealed by the Arbitration Act, 1940.

An arbitral tribunal or arbitration tribunal, also arbitration commission, arbitration

committee or arbitration council is a panel of unbiased adjudicators which is convened and sits
to resolve a dispute by way of arbitration. The tribunal may consist of a sole arbitrator, or there
may be two or more arbitrators, which might include a chairperson or an umpire. Members
selected to serve on a arbitration panel are typically professionals with expertise in both law
and in friendly dispute resolution (mediation). Some scholars have suggested that the ideal
composition of an arbitration commission should include at least also one professional in the
field of the disputed situation, in cases that involve questions of asset or damages valuation for
instance an economist.

5
 These statutes mainly focused to institutionalize the procedure of arbitration in India.
But in some duration of time, it was clear that the Arbitration Act of 1940 was not capable
enough to tackle the requirements of a rapidly changing India. Therefore, it was substituted by
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in 1996. It is based on the UN Model Law to make our
law agreement with the law embraced and acquired by the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The Act is of amending and consolidating in nature
and not exhaustive. It has a much-extended scope of the 1940 Act. It aims for the domestic
Arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Definition

(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) “arbitration” means any arbitration
whether or not administered by permanent arbitral institution;
(b) “arbitration agreement” means an agreement referred to in section 7;
(c) “arbitral award” includes an interim award;
(d) “arbitral tribunal” means a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators;
(e) “Court” means— (i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial
arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the
High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to
decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the
subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such
principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes; (ii) in the case of international
commercial arbitration, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction,
having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if
the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High Court having
jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court;] (f)
“international commercial arbitration” means an arbitration relating to disputes arising out
of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law
in force in India and where at least one of the parties is— (i) an individual who is a national
of, or habitually resident in, any country other than India; or (ii) a body corporate which is
incorporated in any country other than India; or (iii) 2 *** an association or a body of
individuals whose central management and control is exercised in any country other than
India; or (iv) the Government of a foreign country; (g) “legal representative” means a
person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, and, where a party acts in a representative

6
 character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so acting; (h)
“party” means a party to an arbitration agreement.
(2) This Part shall apply where the place of arbitration is in India: [Provided that subject to an
agreement to the contrary, the provisions of sections 9, 27 and clause (a) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (3) of section 37 shall also apply to international commercial arbitration,
even if the place of arbitration is outside India, and an arbitral award made or to be made
in such place is enforceable and recognised under the provisions of Part II of this Act.]
(3) This Part shall not affect any other law for the time being in force by virtue of which certain
disputes may not be submitted to arbitration.
(4) This Part except sub-section (1) of section 40, sections 41 and 43 shall apply to every
arbitration under any other enactment for the time being in force, as if the arbitration were
pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other enactment were an arbitration
agreement, except in so far as the provisions of this Part are inconsistent with that other
enactment or with any rules made thereunder.
(5) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), and save in so far as is otherwise provided by
any law for the time being in force or in any agreement in force between India and any
other country or countries, this Part shall apply to all arbitrations and to all proceedings
relating thereto.
(6) Where this Part, except section 28, leaves the parties free to determine a certain issue, that
freedom shall include the right of the parties to authorise any person including an
institution, to determine that issue.
(7) An arbitral award made under this Part shall be considered as a domestic award.
(8) Where this Part— (a) refers to the fact that the parties have agreed or that they may agree,
or (b) in any other way refers to an agreement of the parties, that agreement shall include
any arbitration rules referred to in that agreement.
(9) Where this Part, other than clause (a) of section 25 or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of
section 32, refers to a claim, it shall also apply to a counterclaim, and where it refers to a
defence, it shall also apply to a defence to that counterclaim.

Composition of the arbitral tribunal

The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the appointing of the sole arbitrator is a
characteristic and crucial issue in arbitration. The composition of the arbitral tribunal will have
a huge effect on the resolution of the dispute.

7
 Not only this, but the composition of the tribunal will have some important legal
consequences related to the starting date for the arbitration and can have repercussions if a
party applies to have the award set aside or enforced later on.

Chapter 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act deals with the composition of the
arbitral tribunal. Section 10 of the act deals with the concept of the number of the Arbitrators.
It state the party are free to choose the number of arbitrators as they may deem fit the only
deciding factor been that the number must be a even number In case where Sub Section 1 of
the Act is not followed then in those cases the three will be a sole arbitrator.

Section 11 of the Act talks about with respect to the nationality of the arbitrator the
person may be of any nationality or may as the party may decide the same. The process of
appointing a arbitrator may be the decided by the parties according to Sub- Section 6.

In Sub Section 3 of Section 11 states the circumstances where the parties fail to choose
a arbitrator under Sub Section 3 the automatic appointment of three arbitrator would be done
and those three be selecting a fourth presiding arbitrator.

Section 12 of the Act talks about the grounds of challenging the arbitrators. There lie
two basis grounds on which a arbitrator can be challenged. The first remains the doubts of been
impartial or the independence of the arbitrator. If the parties or party feels that the arbitrator is
impartial or has connection to one of the parties then the challenge can be raised. On the other
side if the there is a incapacity on the grounds of his Qualification then on that ground too
disqualification process can be initiated. It is also the duty of the party to fully disclose any
contact with the arbitrator if any which will prejudice the hearing at any moment.

Section of 13 of the Act states about the challenge procedure and the proceedings.
Sufficient time is been provided to the arbitrator to prove the fact that he is innocent. If
successful the Arbitrator may be removed from the panel and also new arbitrator may be
appointed. If not successful the arbitrator will be continuing to be in the panel. The appointment
of a new or the appointment of the substitute arbitrator is mentioned in Section 17. In case
where the arbitrator fails to perform his duty, he may be terminated from his position.in other
circumstances the parties my ask the court to pass a interlocutory order against him.

8
 Section 14 of the Act deals with the situation of failure or the impossibility to act by a
arbitrator and the duty of the arbitrator terminates in a de jure or de facto unable to perform his
function or in another case he has withdrawn from his office or the parties have together agreed
to the terminate of his mandate.

Section 15 of the Act deals with the termination and substitution of the arbitrators. Two
conditions are put forward where he has withdrawn from office for any reason and or by the
pursuant to agreement of the parties. Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute
arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of
the arbitrator being replaced. In case where an arbitrator is replaced under sub-section (2), any
hearings previously held may be repeated at the discretion of the arbitral tribunal.

In the Case of N.P Lohia vs N.K Lohia[1] it was held that Section 10 of the said
provision or award can be set aside by the court. The arbitral award can be challenged on the
grounds with regard to the composition of the arbitral tribunal.

In the Case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd vs Rani Construction Pvt Ltd.[2] It
was decided that Section 16 provides with the power to the rule on its own jurisdiction and
decide the same. It also was decided that “under Section 16 is not confined to the width of its
jurisdiction but goes also to the root of its jurisdiction”

Therefore Section 10 can be interpreted in the lights of Section 11. Section 10 remains
more clear than section 11 in a sense that section 10 provides the number of arbitrators. On the
other hand, Section 11 provides only the appointment in cases where there is one arbitrator or
three arbitrators. The SC has held that the agreement does not becomes void just because of
the fact that the parties have decided for appointment of two arbitrators.

Further in the case Renusagar Power Co Ltd Vs GE Co as views of Lohia the interest
of India as it was termed is a component of public policy the same was decided in the landmark
case of ONGC vs Saw Pipes Ltd.[3]

It is a highly debatable point at to the choice of choosing a even number of arbitrator.

The landmark case of the Lohia is as per the prevailing legal system correct and up to the mark
with regard to the parties been allowing to choose even number of arbitrators under section 10

9
of the said act. It is also true that the case is much more stable and provides for a developed
jurisprudence as compared to all over the world. Also, as a matter of fact the case does not have
a major impact on the entire selection process since majority of the arbitral tribunal have a sole
arbitrator or three arbitrators.

Jurisdiction

It would not be appropriate to say that an arbitral tribunal has statutory jurisdiction. The
tribunal determines its jurisdiction to adjust the needs of the parties. The arbitral agreement mainly
determines the ambit of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The focal of party-autonomy declares
that when the two parties have the remedy to resolve their disputes on their own then they have the
remedy to show this right to any third party, to determine overt that squabble.

Thus it is very essential to contemplate a well-drafted agreement because it results in giving

complete strength to the tribunal to determine matters related to the jurisdiction. The Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 also specifically mentions the jurisdiction to determine explicit matters
in Section 17 of the Act.

 Appointment of a guardian for a person who is of unsound mind or minor age in between
the process of arbitration

 Safety/Security/ Confinement/ provisional injunction of the subject matter of the

arbitration.
There are some cases in which the competency of the arbitral tribunal is contingent on
gaining questions.

The relevant provision under the Act (Sec 16)

Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides the following provisions:

 The arbitral tribunal may regulate or direct on its own jurisdiction, which also
incorporates any objection regarding the validity or existence of the arbitration
agreement, and for that objective:

10
 o An arbitration clause which is a term of a contract agreement must be
deemed as an agreement free and autonomous of the other terms of the
contract, and

o A decision of the arbitral tribunal declaring the contract as invalid does not
necessitate ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.

 A plea which emanates that the arbitral tribunal doesn’t have jurisdiction shall not be
made after the defense statement is submitted; however, a party shall not be prevented
from making such a plea only because of his participation in the appointment of, or he
appointed, an arbitrator.

 A plea claiming that the arbitral tribunal is surpassing the scope of its authority shall be
made as soon as the matter alleged to be transcended the scope of its authority is made
during the arbitral proceedings.

 In each of two cases referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), The arbitral tribunal
may accept a delayed plea if it concludes with an opinion that the delay is justified.

 The arbitral tribunal shall determine the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section
(3) and take up with arbitral proceedings where the arbitral tribunal takes a decision
rejecting the plea.

 A party, if disgruntled by such an arbitral award, may make an application for rescinding
such an arbitral award according to Section 34.

Competence of the arbitral tribunal

The Arbitration Act of 1940 lacked such provisions which authorized the Arbitral Tribunal
to regulate on its own jurisdiction and it was upon the court to scrutinize and decide on the
jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. But Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
grants power to the Arbitral Tribunal to look on its own jurisdiction. Section 16 (1) of the Act
provides that the arbitral tribunal may regulate or direct on its own jurisdiction, which also
incorporates any objection regarding the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement.

Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act incorporates the concept of competence-
competence. It contains two facets i.e. the first one reflects that without support from the courts,
the tribunal may decide on its jurisdiction and secondly, it shows reluctance from the courts in
deciding this issue before the tribunal has decided on this issue. But questions regarding the binding

11
effect of the decisions made by the arbitral tribunals need to be discussed and can these decisions
be challenged in courts?

In Union of India vs. M/s. East Coast Boat Builders & Engineers Ltd., the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court observed that it was apparent from the scheme of the act that the legislature didn’t grant
appeal against the order under Section 16(5) where the arbitral tribunal decides rejects a plea that
it has no jurisdiction. Apparently, the intention is that the arbitral tribunal shall proceed with the
arbitral proceedings and make an award without any delay and without interference at any stage in
the arbitral process due to supervisory role of the court.

In the case of Nav Sansad Vihar Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (Regd.) vs. Ram
Sharma and Associates the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if the Arbitral Tribunal rejects a
plea under Section 16(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the arbitral process shall take
place and the award shall be declared and meanwhile, the aggrieved party shall wait till the award
is announced and there is no remedy against such order.

But determination made by the tribunal to admit the plea that it doesn’t have jurisdiction or
that it is surpassing its ambit of authority is appealable and triable under Section 37(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the case of Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. vs. Tata
Finance Ltd., the Hon’ble Bombay High Court opined that in cases where the Arbitral Tribunal
rejects the plea related to its jurisdiction, Section16(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
clearly empowers the Tribunal to resume with the arbitral proceedings and declare an arbitral
award. Section 16(5) grants procedure to challenge an arbitral award. It states that only in
accordance with Section 34, such an award can be challenged. whereas, if the Arbitral Tribunal
determines to accept the plea that it does not have jurisdiction, then such decision can be appealed
under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Thus, it is clear that when the Arbitral Tribunal decides to reject a plea that it does not have
the jurisdiction then the order made related to its jurisdiction cannot be appealed but when the
Arbitral Tribunal accepts the plea that it does not have jurisdiction then such an order can be
appealed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

12
Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal when
contract containing an arbitration clause is
declared void
There may be cases where the arbitration agreement is not made as a separate agreement.
Instead, it is embedded, as a clause, in the agreement between the parties and such contract or the
agreement between the parties is pronounced void or illicit. The question which arises is that what
happens to the agreement in such cases and can the arbitration clause in such cases become void?

In the case of Jawaharlal Burman vs. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
it is theoretically possible that the contract may end and the arbitration contract may not and
similarly it is also theoretically possible that the contract may be valid whereas the arbitration
agreement may be void and in that sense, there is a difference between the contract and its part of
arbitration agreement but in the present situation, a challenge to the contract itself includes a
challenge to the arbitration agreement. If there is a concluded contract the arbitration clause is also
valid and if there is not a concluded contract the arbitration clause is also invalid. The Court also
acknowledged that there could be a vast majority of cases in which the arbitration agreement exists
as a part of the main contract itself, and challenging the validity or even existence of one would
mean a challenge to the validity or existence of others.

In the case of Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raymon and Co. (India) Ltd., The Hon’ble
Supreme Court opined that discourse to the legitimacy of a contract could be the subject matter of
an agreement of arbitration similarly as a debate identifying with a case made under the contract.
But such an agreement would be operative and effective only when it is distinct from and
independent of the contract which is disputed as illegal.

In the case of Jaikishan Dass Mull vs. Luchhiminarain Kanoria & Co., the Hon’ble Apex
Court of India opined that there cannot be any doubts that if a contract is void and illegal, then, the
arbitration clause must also perish along with the contract itself. As Viscount Simon, L.C. also
pointed out in Heyman vs. Darwins Ltd. that if one party to the contract contends that it is void ab
initio, and for this view, the clause itself is void and therefore the arbitration clause cannot operate.
The arbitration clause, which is an essential content of the contract, cannot stand if the contract
itself is declared to be illegal.

13
 But the position has changed after the enactment of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act in
1996. And Section 16 (1) of this Act declares that the arbitration clause even if inserted in a
contract, shall be considered as an independent from the remaining of the contract and a
determination made by the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the invalidity of the contract shall not
require ipso jure invalidation of the arbitration clause.

In the case of Olympus Superstructures vs. Meena Vijay Khaitan, the Apex Court stated
that it shall be noticed that the arbitral tribunal is now empowered under sub-section (1) of Section
16 of the Act to look and reconsider on its own jurisdiction which also includes deciding on any
objection related to the validity or even existence of the arbitration agreement and for such purpose,
the arbitration clause which is a part of the contract and any decision by the arbitral tribunal related
to the invalidity of the contract shall not require ipso jure affect the validity of the arbitration clause.
It is clear from clause (b) of Section 16(1) which provides that a decision by the arbitral tribunal
related to invalidation of the main contract shall not require ipso jure invalidation of the arbitration
clause.

Loss of competence of arbitral tribunal to rule

on its jurisdiction
Section 11(6) of the Act states that a party may appeal to the designate of Chief Justice or
the Chief Justice himself in order to take necessary steps when concurred by the parties under an
appointment procedure, one of them doesn’t act as necessary under the procedure, or the two
mediators fall short to stick to an agreement as contemplated of them under the procedure, or a
person or institution falls short to execute a function endowed to him under the procedure.

And Section 11(7) declares that a resolution which is taken by the Chief justice or the
person designated by him under Section 11(4), Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) shall be final. It
shows that a limit of the tribunal to reconsider its own jurisdiction when the Chief Justice has
already considered and decided it.

In the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. the
judgment held that in a case when the chief justice or any person designated by him may have
nominated the arbitrator through the thirty days had not expired then the Arbitral Tribunal would
not have been constituted properly and therefore be without jurisdiction. The aggrieved party, in
14
that case, could require the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction and Section 16 provides
provision for this and declares that the Arbitral Tribunal may look on its jurisdiction.

In the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. NEPC India Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that an order stated under Section 11 of the Act is an administrative order. It means that no
appeal could exist under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. This case shows unwillingness on the
part of the Court to affect the freedom enjoyed by the arbitration process and by declaring that the
functions of the Chief Justice are administrative, the Court had essentially forbidden the Chief
Justice from adjudicating questions such as the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement.

Section 16 of the act cannot be declared to empower the Arbitral tribunal to take no notice
of the decision which is given by the judicial authority or the Chief justice before the reference to
it was made. The authority to decide does not permit the Arbitral tribunal to ignore the finality
granted to an order passed earlier to its entering upon the reference by the very statute which creates
it.

Thus, if the Chief Justice or a person designated by him has looked into the validity or
presence of the arbitration provision and on its jurisdiction then the Arbitral Tribunal can’t rethink
the topic of its jurisdiction. It would in such a case be forbidden from looking into the matter of its
jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction for enforcement of the arbitral

awards
The procedure for execution of decrees in India is governed through the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 whereas that of arbitral awards is governed through the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 (“Act”) as well as the CPC.

In the case of Sundaram Finance vs. Abdul Samad & Anr, a two-Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court of India had cleared the doubts related to the jurisdiction for the enforcement
of the arbitral award. The Supreme Court removed the doubt by mentioning that an arbitral award
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be discharged in any court of competent
jurisdiction and that getting a transfer order from any court. It was certainly a landmark judgment
that extended the ambit and power of the arbitral tribunal.

15
The appeal of arbitral awards
There can be no appeal of arbitral awards against the jurisdiction related to the merits of
the arbitral award. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that an arbitrator should be deemed
as a judge which is appointed by the parties and an award passed by him should not be lightly
interfered with. In one judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the consideration of the award
being satisfactory cannot be decided solely on the premise of the impulse of any person. However,
this doesn’t mean that the arbitral award is absolute and it does not prevent from questioning the
result of arbitration.

There are certain remedies which are made by the law to ensure proper and efficient
conduct of proceedings. The repealed Arbitration and Conciliation act 1940 Act provided three
remedies against an arbitration award which are modification, remission and setting aside which
has been further amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the remedies are
divided into two parts. And the remedy for rectification of errors has been handed over the Tribunal
and to the parties to decide.

The remedy for setting aside is amended and the award after the arbitration process will be
returned back to the tribunal for removal of defects. Section 34 provides some grounds to set aside
the arbitral award which includes an invalid agreement, the incongruity, inefficiency on the part of
one of the parties, incapacity in the subject of the arbitration process and the arbitral award,
opposing the public policy, a discrepancy in the appointment of the arbitrators etc.

The Act of 1996 specifies that an arbitral award cannot be overturned by the court merely
because of re-appreciation of evidence or an erroneous application of the law. In the case
of Brijendra Nath vs. Mayank, the Hon’ble Supreme court declared that if during the pendency of
the application challenging the validity of the arbitral award, the parties have acted upon it, then it
would lead to estoppel against attacking the award.

16
Conclusion
The arbitration started as a procedure to avoid the troubles of civil litigation. British
Government spread it in India. The Arbitration Act, 1940 focused to institutionalize the procedure
of arbitration in India. Later this act was amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of
1996. An arbitral tribunal does not have statutory jurisdiction. The tribunal determines its own
jurisdiction to adjust the needs of the parties. The arbitral agreement mainly determines the ambit
of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. There can be no appeal of arbitral awards against the
jurisdiction related to the merits of the arbitral award. Section 11(7) declares that a resolution which
is taken by the Chief justice or the person designated by him under Section 11(4), Section
11(5) or Section 11(6) shall be final. It shows that a limit of the tribunal to reconsider its own
jurisdiction when the Chief Justice has already considered and decided it.

17
Biblography

https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-jurisdiction-of-the-arbitration-
tribunals/#Introduction

https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1996-26.pdf

https://www.legalpedia.co.in/articlecontent/concept-of-arbitral-
tribunal.html

https://lawbhoomi.com/composition-of-the-arbitral-tribunal/

18