- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter arises from an interlocutory application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award. An earlier order of this Court dated 28-08-1998 had appointed the arbitrator and explicitly directed that (i) the award be filed in this Court and (ii) any application arising during or after the arbitral proceedings be filed “only in this Court.” In the present proceedings, the respondent–applicant (objector) seeks to question the territorial jurisdiction to hear the Section 34 petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in light of Sections 34 and 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petition under Section 34 should be heard by the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) or by the Court that issued the earlier appointment order.
Arguments of the Parties
Objector’s Arguments
- Invoking Sections 34 and 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the objector contends that the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) is the competent court to entertain the Section 34 petition.
Opponent’s Arguments
- The opponent disputes the objector’s jurisdictional contention, insisting that the present Court retains exclusive jurisdiction based on its earlier order.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court relied squarely on its earlier order dated 28-08-1998, which contained two decisive clauses:
- The arbitrator was required to file the award in “this Court.”
- Any application arising during or after the arbitration proceedings “shall be filed only in this Court.”
Given these explicit directives, the Court concluded that the Section 34 objection petition could not be entertained elsewhere. Consequently, the Court rejected the objector’s plea to have the matter transferred to the Calcutta High Court and affirmed its own jurisdiction to hear the petition on the merits.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The objection petition under Section 34 must be heard by this Court; the matter is set down for hearing on merits. The objector is permitted to file an application to amend the objection within two weeks, with a corresponding two-week period for reply.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the Section 34 proceedings will continue before this Court, and procedural timelines for amendment and reply have been fixed. The order does not articulate broader legal implications or establish new precedent.
Order
1. This IA is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent applicant (objector) submits that in view of the provisions contained in Section 34 read with Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petition under Section 34 deserves to be heard by the Calcutta High Court (Original Side). The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant (opponent) disputes the correctness of this proposition.
3. In the order dated 28-8-1998 passed by this Court appointing the arbitrator, it was made clear that:
“9. The learned arbitrator shall file the award in this Court.
10. Any application which may become necessary to be filed during or after the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, shall be filed only in this Court.”
4. In view of the abovesaid clauses, we are of the opinion that the objection petition under Section 34 could have been filed only in this Court.
5. Let the petition be set down for hearing on merits.
6. The learned counsel for the parties seek time for making the submissions.
7. Adjourned.
8. The learned counsel for the objector submits that the objector proposes to file an application seeking an amendment in the objection petition. Let that application be filed within two weeks. The application shall be considered on its own merits when filed. Liberty to file reply in two weeks thereafter.
Court Masters
Alert