Engineer in Chief Public Works Deptt. Lucknow and Ors. vs M/S… — Arbitration

Though an objection has been filed against the application for condonation of delay, but there is no serious objection and learned counsel for the respondent has also not raised any objection.

¶15

On due consideration, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the civil misc review application is condoned.

¶16

Order on Review Application

¶17

Heard.

¶18

This Court had passed the following order on 20.02.2026:-

¶19

"1. This is an application for review of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by this Court alongwith an application for condonation of delay.

¶20

CMRAD No. 227 of 2024

¶21

2

¶22

2. Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has uploaded an objection to the application for condonation of delay alongwith the power on 18.02.2026. However, the same is not available on record. Office is directed to place it on record after removal of defects, if any.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the respondents also raised preliminary objection that this review application itself is not maintainable for two reasons, firstly, basically the review petitioner is challenging an order passed by co-ordinate Bench, on the basis of which, the appointment order was issued by this Bench relying on the same, secondly, the issue raised in this review application can be raised only before the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, who can decide it and he has no objection in disposal of the review application with liberty to the review petitioner to raise this objection before the learned Arbitrator, who may be appointed in substitute to the Arbitrator, who was appointed by this Court and now he is no more and an application for substitute Arbitrator has been filed, which is pending before this Court.

¶24

4. Sri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the objections filed on the application for condonation of delay and also seek instructions and argue on the issue raised by learned counsel for the respondents of raising the issue before the learned Arbitrator.

¶25

5. List in week commencing 09.03.2026."

¶26

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that since the review application has been filed, the same may be decided accordingly.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that any objection regarding the competence of the arbitral tribunal may be raised before the learned Tribunal (Arbitrator) under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the Tribunal is competent to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. He further submits that merely because this Court has appointed the Arbitrator, the powers conferred upon the Tribunal under the Act cannot be said to have been taken away. He also submits that he has already consented that in the event any objection is raised by the review petitioner before the learned Arbitrator, he has no objection, as recorded

¶28

CMRAD No. 227 of 2024

¶29

3

¶30

in the aforesaid order dated 20.02.2026. Further, he submits that since the arbitral tribunal is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he has no objection if such an issue is raised before the learned Arbitrator. He additionally undertakes that he will not raise any objection regarding delay in raising such objection, in view of the pendency of the present review application. Thus, it is submitted that the issue may not be decided by this Court and may be left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator.

¶31

The legal position as argued by learned counsel for the respondents could not be disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶32

In view of above, without entering into the merits of the review application, the application stands disposed of with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in case any such objection is raised, the same may be considered and decided by the Arbitrator in accordance with law without being influenced by the orders passed by this Court.

¶33

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶34

March 12, 2026

¶35

Raj

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Engineer in Chief Public Works Deptt. Lucknow and Ors. v. M/S Siddharth Constructions - M/S Jagdish Saran Jv Thru Authorized Signatory Saurabh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Engineer in Chief Public Works Deptt. Lucknow and Ors. v. M/S Siddharth Constructions - M/S Jagdish Saran Jv Thru Authorized Signatory Saurabh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shobh Nath S/O Hari Prasad (Dead) Subsituted by 1/1 Phool Chandra and 2 Others vs Raj Kumar S/O Chandra Ram (Dead) Substituted by 1/1 Smt. Gulab Pati and Others

Manendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another