M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONS versus THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS.

M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONS versus THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS.

Where the notice invoking arbitration was issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 (i.e., arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 21 before 23.10.2015) and the Section 11(6) application was filed after the Amendment, the pre-amendment Arbitration Act, 1996 governs; accordingly the High Court was entitled to decide preliminary issues such as accord and satisfaction and dismiss the Section 11(6) petition. Decisions in Parmar and Pradeep Vinod are not per incuriam as BCCI addressed Sections 34 and 36 and not Section 11.

Parties
Appellant: M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONS; Respondent: THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment (arba No. 151 of 2016)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation (amendment) Act, 2015, Section 11(6) Appointment of Arbitrator, Interpretation of Section 21 and Section 26 of the Arbitration Act, Accord and Satisfaction
Arbitration Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation (amendment) Act, 2015 Section 11(6) Appointment of Arbitrator Interpretation of Section 21 and Section 26 of the Arbitration Act Accord and Satisfaction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONS

Appellant

THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment (arba No. 151 of 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amendment Act, 2015 applies where notice invoking arbitration was issued prior to the Amendment but Section 11(6) application was filed after the Amendment
  2. 2 Whether decisions in Parmar Constructions Company and Pradeep Vinod Construction Company are per incuriam for not considering BCCI
  3. 3 Whether the Court can inquire into accord and satisfaction at the Section 11(6) stage post-Amendment Act, 2015

Ratio Decidendi

Where the notice invoking arbitration was issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 (i.e., arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 21 before 23.10.2015) and the Section 11(6) application was filed after the Amendment, the pre-amendment Arbitration Act, 1996 governs; accordingly the High Court was entitled to decide preliminary issues such as accord and satisfaction and dismiss the Section 11(6) petition. Decisions in Parmar and Pradeep Vinod are not per incuriam as BCCI addressed Sections 34 and 36 and not Section 11.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court judgment and order dated 30.06.2020 in ARBA No. 151 of 2016 affirmed