Court Not Having Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Cannot Go Into Merits Of Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court

This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act arose out of an order passed by the District Judge by which objections preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award were rejected.

The district court at Dharamsala returned a finding that the court didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 as the arbirtal proceedings were conducted at Shimla and only the court having supervisory jurisdiction over the tribunal would be competent to entertain the application.

In this case, the agreement containing the arbitration clause was perused which only indicated the venue of Arbitration without specifying the seat of the Arbitration.

The court in the impugned order held that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company Limited Vs NHPC (2020) venue would be considered as seat of Arbitration in the absence of any place to be designated as the seat of the Arbitration.

Having come to the conclusion that the court at Dharamsala didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application, the court observed that it shouldn't have gone into the merits of the case.

In light of the above discussion, the court held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

Case Title: Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Farmers' Forum

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 82

Case Number: Arbitration Appeal No 66/2024

Judgment Date: 5/12/2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order