Summary
The Supreme Court held that an arbitral-jurisdiction objection is not barred under section 34 merely because it was not raised under section 16. Public policy of India includes State as well as Central law, and contrary observations in paragraphs 16 and 17 of MSP Infrastructure were overruled. The belated amendment application was not pressed and the order allowing it was set aside. Whether the particular State-law exclusion objection could be argued without formal pleading was left to the court hearing the section 34 challenge.
Issues
- Whether omission to challenge jurisdiction under section 16 barred a section 34 objection.
- Whether public policy of India excluded State law.
- Whether the particular State-law jurisdiction objection could be considered without the unpressed amendment.
Held
- The section 16 and section 34 stages are independent. There is no bar to raising jurisdiction as an objection under section 34 solely because no such objection was raised under section 16. Contrary observations in paragraphs 16 and 17 of MSP Infrastructure did not state the correct law. (¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)
- Public policy of India refers to law in force in India, including State law and Central law. The contrary restriction in MSP Infrastructure was expressly overruled; the Court did not hold that every alleged breach of State law necessarily invalidates an award. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The State did not press its amendment application. The Court therefore proceeded on the footing that the out-of-time amendment was not allowed, treated the appeal as infructuous and set aside the impugned order. In the continued section 34 proceedings, both sides could argue whether the asserted exclusion by the Madhya Pradesh statute was a purely legal plea available without formal pleading. That particular question remained for the concerned court. (¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 11)
Result
Appeals disposed of as infructuous on the amendment not being pressed; impugned amendment order set aside. Section 34 objections to proceed, with the specific unpleaded State-law objection question left open.