- STPL argues that notices were sent to VSPL, including for arbitration, but VSPL did not

participate.
- They claim that notices were also issued by the Execution Court, but VSPL failed to appear.
- STPL asserts that the appointment of Mr. Rohit Arora was in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.
- They argue that VSPL cannot challenge the award at this stage after failing to participate in the
arbitration process.

Conclusion on Jurisdiction:
- Based on the facts presented, there are genuine disputes regarding the jurisdiction of Mr. Rohit
Arora as the arbitrator.
- VSPL claims the appointment was illegal and that they nominated their arbitrator.
- STPL argues that they followed the Agreement's procedure and VSPL's non-participation
forfeits their right to challenge.
- The High Court will need to examine the Agreement, the circumstances of the appointment,
and the actions of both parties.
- The Court may consider whether VSPL was given proper notice and opportunity to participate.
- Given these complexities, the High Court has the jurisdiction to review whether the Arbitral
Award was passed without proper jurisdiction.
- The High Court's decision will depend on the interpretation of the Agreement, the actions of
both parties, and adherence to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Based on the legal principles and the facts presented, the High Court can indeed consider
whether the Arbitral Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator was without jurisdiction and
consequently set it aside in the Civil Revision jurisdiction. The Court will need to carefully
assess the arguments and evidence presented by both parties to arrive at a just decision.

The ability of a high court to set aside an arbitral award passed by a sole arbitrator based on
jurisdictional laches depends on the laws of the jurisdiction where the arbitration took place.
"Laches" refers to unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim, which can sometimes be a
factor in legal proceedings. However, whether it can be used to set aside an arbitral award varies
by jurisdiction.
In many legal systems, there are limited grounds upon which an arbitral award can be challenged
or set aside. These grounds are typically outlined in the governing arbitration law or the
arbitration agreement itself. Common grounds for challenging an arbitral award include:

1. Lack of jurisdiction
2. Procedural irregularities
3. Breach of natural justice
4. Public policy considerations

If "jurisdictional laches" is recognized as a ground for challenging an arbitral award in a

particular jurisdiction, it would mean that a party is arguing that the other party unreasonably
delayed in raising a jurisdictional objection during the arbitration proceedings. This delay could
be seen as waiving the right to challenge jurisdiction later on.

However, it's essential to consult the specific arbitration law and case law of the jurisdiction in
question to determine whether jurisdictional laches is a recognized ground for challenging an
arbitral award. In some jurisdictions, procedural matters like this might be considered a waivable
right, meaning if a party did not object in a timely manner during the arbitration, they may not be
able to raise the issue later before a court.

It's also important to note that courts generally show deference to arbitral awards, and the
grounds for challenging them are intentionally limited to uphold the finality and efficiency of
arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution method.

For specific advice or information about a particular jurisdiction, consulting with a legal
professional with expertise in arbitration law in that jurisdiction would be recommended.
Here are a few cases that discuss the issue of setting aside an arbitral award based on
jurisdictional laches:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 267 (India):
 In this case, the Supreme Court of India considered whether a party's delay in raising
jurisdictional objections during arbitration proceedings amounted to a waiver of their right to
challenge the award on jurisdictional grounds. The court held that if a party actively participates
in the arbitration without raising an objection to jurisdiction, they would be deemed to have
waived their right to later challenge the award on that basis. This case emphasizes the importance
of timely raising jurisdictional objections during arbitration.

2. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 127):
This case is an important one in Indian arbitration law. The Supreme Court of India held that
where a party participates in arbitration proceedings without raising an objection to the tribunal's
jurisdiction, that party is deemed to have waived its right to object to the award on jurisdictional
grounds. The court stated that parties cannot be allowed to "blow hot and cold" by participating
in the arbitration and later challenging the award on grounds that they could have raised earlier.
3 Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (1999) 5 SCC 688:
In this case, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the principle that a party cannot be allowed
to actively participate in arbitration proceedings and then challenge the jurisdiction of the
tribunal after the award has been made. The court emphasized that parties must raise
jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so can result in waiver of
the right to challenge the award on jurisdictional grounds.
{1. Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co. v. The Ministry of Religious Affairs,
Government of Pakistan (2010) UKSC 46:
In this case, the UK Supreme Court dealt with the issue of jurisdictional laches and the
enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. The court discussed the principles of waiver and
estoppel concerning objections to jurisdiction. It held that if a party participates in arbitration
proceedings without raising an objection to the tribunal's jurisdiction, it may be deemed to have
waived its right to later challenge the award on jurisdictional grounds.
2. Enderwick v. Otago Dockers' Union (2001) 2 NZLR 289 (CA) (New Zealand):
This case from New Zealand involves the concept of "estoppel by conduct" in the context of
arbitration. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand held that a party who participated in arbitration
proceedings without raising an objection to the tribunal's jurisdiction may be estopped from
challenging the award on jurisdictional grounds later. The court emphasized that parties should
not be allowed to take inconsistent positions by participating in arbitration and then seeking to
challenge the award based on jurisdictional objections.

3. Alpha Petrōleum Resources Limited v. Oando Plc (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt.1641) 208 (Nigeria):
 In this Nigerian case, the Court of Appeal discussed the issue of waiver and estoppel in
arbitration proceedings. The court held that a party who fails to raise objections to the
jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal during the arbitration proceedings may be deemed to have
waived its right to challenge the award on jurisdictional grounds later. The court emphasized the
importance of raising jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity.

4. Hillside (New Caledonia) P/L v. RFI Leasing Pty Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 588 (Australia):
In this Australian case, the High Court of Australia discussed the principle of "waiver" in the
context of arbitration. The court held that a party who voluntarily participates in arbitration
without raising a jurisdictional objection may be taken to have waived its right to later challenge
the award on jurisdictional grounds. The court emphasized the need for parties to act consistently
and raise objections in a timely manner.}1

In the recent case of Quippo Construction Equipment Limited Vs Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited,
the Supreme Court held that when a party does not participate in the Arbitration proceedings, he
is deemed to waive his right to object resultantly and cannot object to the jurisdiction of the
Arbitral Tribunal at a later stage.
In the above mentioned circumstances, thus, a party is precluded from raising an objection to the
jurisdiction, by reason of estoppel.

In S.N. Malhotra & Sons vs. Airport Authority of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court dissected
the anatomy of Section 4 and stated that the provision prescribes 4 pre-conditions to constitute a
deemed waiver of the right to object. Applying those postulates to section 16, there is deemed
waiver of the right to object to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, if:
1. The Arbitral Tribunal is lacking or exceeding jurisdiction;
2. Either of the parties to the Arbitration Agreement has knowledge of such want or excess
of jurisdiction;
3. The said party continues continues with the Arbitration proceedings without raising an
objection to jurisdiction;
4. The said party raises an objection;
 With delay that is not justified; or

1
Cases of persuasive nature.
 After the submission of Statement of Defence or not as soon as the matter which is
beyond the scope of authority of the Arbitral Tribunal is raised during the proceedings.