The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not exclude any category of dispute – Civil or Commercial – from Arbitrability

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 9105 OF 2021

Tirupati Shopping Centre Premises
Co-op. Society Limited,
a society registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
having its registered Office at C.T.S. Nos. 308
and 309, S. V. Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai – 400 054. … Petitioner

Versus

Shabayesha Construction Company Private Limited
a Company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956 and deemed to be incorporated
under the Companies Act, 2013 having its Registered
Office at A. N. House, 1st Floor, 31st Road, TPS III,
Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. … Respondent

Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sanjay Kadam
and Mr. Rohan Kadam, i/by M/s. Kadam & Company, Advocates for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w Mr. Nishant Sasidharan, Mr. Darshan Mehta,
Ms.Shrushtri Dalal and Ms. Apeksha Sharma, Advocates for the
Respondent.

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &

V. G. BISHT, JJ.

RESERVED DATE : 12th APRIL, 2021
PRONOUNCED DATE : 22nd APRIL, 2021

JUDGMENT (Per R. D. Dhanuka, J.) :-

By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 19th January, 2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator dismissing the Application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Arbitration Act’) and holding that the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claims laid down by the respondent.

Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under :-

2. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent at the threshold raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the respondent in such arbitral proceedings raising a plea of jurisdiction raised by such respondent is not maintainable. The remedy, if any, of the petitioner (original respondent) would be to challenge the said order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal along with final award, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel invited our attention to various paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deep Industries Limited v/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and Limited and Anr., (2020) 15 SCC 706.

3. Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that the writ petition filed by his client under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deep Industries Limited (supra) and other subsequent judgments. 

To know more in details find the attachment file