Consent of parties

When a forum has not been blessed with jurisdiction to hear a matter, same cannot be bestowed even with the consent of opponent side.

Mere requesting for an expeditious decision of a case could not change the settled principle that consent of parties could not confer a jurisdiction upon a Court/functionary/authority, which otherwise was not available under a law.

No jurisdiction could be conferred on the Court by the consent of the parties unless the jurisdiction was "conferred on it by the constitution or by or under any law."

Petitioner company impugned order of Trial Court whereby, upon respondent company's application under S.20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940; an arbitrator nominated by respondent was appointed without the consent of the petitioner

Validity

Under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 it was apparent that consent of parties was sine qua non for appointment of arbitrator and upon any dissent shown by a party, the same would result in a particular arbitrator not being appointed

Jurisdiction of Trial Court after an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was to move, did not allow it to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator proposed by one party that was not acceptable to the other party

Provisions of S.8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were not applicable to the present case and said provision was separate and distinct from S.20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and there was no embargo on appointment of more than one arbitrators

Impugned order was therefore made while exercising jurisdiction not vested in Trial Court, and was set aside

High Court remanded matter to Trial Court with direction to appoint arbitrator with consent of parties and expertise

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

When two or more Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter and parties to a contract/dispute choose to confer jurisdiction upon one of such Courts, then such agreement is not violative of law

Court so chosen assumes jurisdiction in the matter.

If such clause agreed upon by parties is to be treated as arbitration clause with a necessary corollary that the suit filed before that Court jurisdiction of which is intended to be ousted must be stayed and not dismissed.