Supreme Court rules on a petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Supreme Court rules on a petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act

The appellant had submitted that the Bombay High Court had not served a notice of the petition

The Supreme Court has observed that while dealing with a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court by default would refer the matter to the arbitral tribunal when non-arbitrable disputes were arguable.

The bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka observed that in such a scenario the issue of non-arbitrability was left open to be decided by the tribunal.

While disposing of the appeals against the orders passed by a single judge of the Bombay High Court, the bench ruled that while allowing a petition under the Act, the high court had appointed a member of the Bar as the sole arbitrator. Whereas the appellant approached the apex court essentially contending that the high court did not issue and serve a notice of the petition.

The appellant had submitted that he was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a hospital in May 2021 and was discharged in June 2021. As the appellant was not given notice of the date fixed in the petition under the Act, he could not urge before the high court that the claim was barred by limitation and that there was no arbitration clause.

The bench noted that the impugned order referred to the affidavit of service of notice.

The top court said, "A judicial notice will have to be taken of a long-standing and consistent practice followed on the original site of the Bombay High Court. The practice is that the advocates serve a notice of the proceedings filed in the court even before it comes up before the court. The court acts upon such service affected by the advocate on proof thereof being produced in the form of an affidavit of service.

"There is nothing illegal about the high court acting upon the advocate's notice admittedly served to the appellant. According to the case of the appellant, he was admitted to a hospital in May 2021. However, the advocate's notice was served in November 2019. The appellant could have made arrangements to contest the said petition. Therefore, we reject the first submission made by the senior counsel appearing for the appellant."