Union of India (UOI) and Another vs V. Ramana Reddy

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.—In this review petition, the principal contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition is that the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents had erroneously conceded that none of the claims as lodged by the applicant can be termed as excepted matters, though, there is a specific mention in the counter-affidavit, in particular, paragraph 9 thereof, recording therein that items 4 and 5 ought to be treated as excepted matters. It has been contended that in terms of the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act of 1996, the Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to even decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal. As such, error or omission on the part of an Advocate as regards exclusion as excepted matters ought not to be permitted in order to subserve the ends of justice.

Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, however, in no uncertain terms contended that as a matter of fact, by reason of a clear and categorical statement as recorded in the earlier order, question of review of an order does not and cannot arise.

I do, however, feel it expedient to record that in view of a definite statement in the counter-affidavit there might be some misunderstanding on the part of the Advocate concerned while making that submission. But since under the new Act jurisdiction is conferred on to the Arbitration Tribunal, as noted above, I am of the view that the review application ought to be allowed and the Arbitrator be directed to deal with the Item Nos. 4 and 5 in accordance with law. In view of the order as above, a revised statement of defence be filed before the Arbitrator within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed one week thereafter and the Arbitrator shall proceed with the matter immediately thereafter with utmost expedition. The review petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.