Summary
Following a Supreme Court-directed arbitration, the contractor asked the Court to pronounce judgment in terms of the award while the State pursued a Section 34 challenge before the civil court. Finding conflicting authority on whether retaining seisin allowed the Supreme Court to entertain an application to make the award a rule of court, the Bench referred the jurisdictional question to a larger Bench.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court could entertain an application to make an award a rule of court when it had retained seisin over arbitral proceedings.
- How conflicting precedents and preservation of statutory appellate remedies should be addressed.
Held
- Earlier authority treated a direction to file the award in the Supreme Court as supporting that Court’s exclusive consideration of the award and objections. Other authority emphasised statutory court definitions and the loss of ordinary appeal rights if objections were decided directly by the Supreme Court. The Bench identified a difference of opinion requiring larger-Bench resolution. (¶ 2–6)
- The referred question was whether the Supreme Court could entertain an application to make an award a rule of court even when it retained seisin over the arbitral proceedings. This order did not resolve that jurisdictional issue or determine the validity or merits of the award. (¶ 6–7)
Result
Jurisdictional question referred to a larger Bench; Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.