# M/S Arya Rice Mill v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 41517 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-arya-rice-mill-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52984
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 21 - Objections to
jurisdiction - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section 16 - Competence of
arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction
- Objection to jurisdiction, particularly in
regard
to
territorial
or
pecuniary
jurisdiction, is to be taken at the earliest
possible opportunity and, in any case,
before settlement of issues. If such
objection is not taken at the earliest, it
cannot be allowed at a subsequent stage.
In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a
plea that the arbitral tribunal does not
have jurisdiction should be raised not
later than the submission of the defence.
If the excess of jurisdiction crops up
during the proceedings, the objection
should be made at that very time. In any
case,
objection
on
the
question
of
jurisdiction has to be made before the
arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral
tribunal has the power to rule on its own
jurisdiction. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Civil Law - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 21 - Objections to
jurisdiction - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Petitioner assailed the order
passed by the Arbitrator on the ground
that the Executive Director, U.P. State
Employees'
Welfare
Corporation,
had
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued the recovery certificates earlier,
and therefore, he could not have been
appointed as Arbitrator in the case. Held:
Petitioner did not raise any objection with
regard
to
the
appointment
of
the
Executive Director as Arbitrator in the
case at the very first instance. Petitioner
has not been able to point out what
prejudice was caused to him by the fact
that the Executive Director was appointed
as
Arbitrator.
Petitioner,
having
participated in the proceedings without
any objection in regard to the jurisdiction
or any perceived bias of the Arbitrator,
would be dis-entitled from raising any
such objection in subsequent proceedings.
(Paras 8, 12)
Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

1 All. M/S Arya Rice Mill Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
38. Since the actions of the
Collector concerned in constituting the
Committee to conduct an inquiry and
permitting the District Panchayat Raj
Officer to pass the impugned order dated
21.8.2024 has been held to be an abdication
of statutory responsibility by the concerned
Collector leading to provisions of the Act,
1961 being sought to be rendered nugatory,
we partly allow the writ petition with cost
of Rs.50,000/- that shall be paid by the
State Government to the petitioners within
a month from today. It shall be open to the
State Government to recover the amount of
cost
from
the
concerned
authority/
Collector.

39.
The
District
Magistrate/Collector
is
directed
to
personally undertake the exercise of
satisfying himself as to the validity of the
notice in terms of the judgment in Utma
Devi as affirmed by a Full Bench of this
Court in Smt. Sheela Devi, the extract of
the judgment whereof is quoted in
paragraph no. 24 above. If the District
Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied as to
the signatures of the members of the
Kshettra Panchayat in the written notice of
intention to make the no confidence motion
after looking into the records of the
Kshettra Panchayat, he shall proceed to
convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat
for consideration of 'no confidence motion'
at the office of Kshettra Panchayat on a
date appointed by him, within a period of
thirty days from today and shall give to the
elected members of Kshettra Panchayat
notice of not less than fifteen days of such
meeting in the manner prescribed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 321
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 41517 of 2024

M/S Arya Rice Mill ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sadhana Dubey, Shashi Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 21 - Objections to
jurisdiction - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section 16 - Competence of
arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction
- Objection to jurisdiction, particularly in
regard
to
territorial
or
pecuniary
jurisdiction, is to be taken at the earliest
possible opportunity and, in any case,
before settlement of issues. If such
objection is not taken at the earliest, it
cannot be allowed at a subsequent stage.
In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a
plea that the arbitral tribunal does not
have jurisdiction should be raised not
later than the submission of the defence.
If the excess of jurisdiction crops up
during the proceedings, the objection
should be made at that very time. In any
case,
objection
on
the
question
of
jurisdiction has to be made before the
arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral
tribunal has the power to rule on its own
jurisdiction. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Civil Law - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 21 - Objections to
jurisdiction - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Petitioner assailed the order
passed by the Arbitrator on the ground
that the Executive Director, U.P. State
Employees'
Welfare
Corporation,
had
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued the recovery certificates earlier,
and therefore, he could not have been
appointed as Arbitrator in the case. Held:
Petitioner did not raise any objection with
regard
to
the
appointment
of
the
Executive Director as Arbitrator in the
case at the very first instance. Petitioner
has not been able to point out what
prejudice was caused to him by the fact
that the Executive Director was appointed
as
Arbitrator.
Petitioner,
having
participated in the proceedings without
any objection in regard to the jurisdiction
or any perceived bias of the Arbitrator,
would be dis-entitled from raising any
such objection in subsequent proceedings.
(Paras 8, 12)
Dismissed. (E-5)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondent.

2. Present writ petition seeks to
challenge an order dated 19.11.2024 passed
by respondent no.3, in his capacity as
Arbitrator, and the subsequent recovery
certificates dated 20.11.2024 issued by
respondent no.2, and also the order dated
29.11.2024 passed by respondent no.6,
restraining the petitioner from hulling of
Custom Milled Rice (CMR) for the year
2024-25.

3. The petitioner has described itself as
a firm engaged in the business of hulling
paddy to convert it into rice. In respect of
dues regarding CMR deficit, for the year
2018-19,
recovery
certificates
dated
4.3.2020 were issued against the petitioner.
Certain representations are stated to have
been moved against the aforesaid recovery
certificates. Subsequently, a citation dated
29.5.2023 was issued in pursuance of the
recovery certificates issued earlier.

4. The petitioner, at this stage,
preferred a writ petition, being Writ-C
No.22401 of 2023 which, vide order dated
2.8.2023, was permitted to be withdrawn
with liberty to avail the remedy of
arbitration by approaching the Arbitrator.

5.
The
petitioner,
thereafter
approached respondent no.2 for initiation
of arbitration proceedings. It is stated that
respondent no.2 appointed himself as an
Arbitrator and after hearing the parties, has
passed an order dated 19.11.2024, rejecting
the representation/claim of the petitioner.
Consequent to the aforesaid order, recovery
certificates dated 20.11.2024 have been
issued by respondent no.2, and also an
order dated 29.11.2024 has been passed by
respondent no.6, whereby the petitioner has
been restrained from hulling work of CMR
for the year 2024-25 till further orders.

6. The only ground that has been
pressed before us by learned counsel for the
petitioner
to
assail
the
order
dated
19.11.2024 passed by the Arbitrator is that
respondent no.2/Executive Director, U P
State Employees' Welfare Corporation, had
issued the recovery certificates earlier, and
therefore, he could not have been appointed
as Arbitrator in the case.

7. Learned counsel for the State,
referring to Section 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 19081, has submitted that the
objection to the jurisdiction or objection to
a person being Arbitrator ought to have
been raised at the very first instance. He
has also submitted that the objection also
sought to have been made to the effect that
the petitioner had been prejudiced because
1 All. Anand Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
323
of the fact that the Arbitrator, i.e. the
Executive Director was appointed as an
Arbitrator.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State, we
find that it is not disputed that the petitioner did
not raise any objection with regard to the
appointment of the Executive Director as an
Arbitrator in the case at the very first instance.
Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
point out as to what prejudice was caused to the
petitioner by the fact that the Executive Director
was appointed as an Arbitrator.

9. The principles underlying in Section 21
of the CPC are to the effect that objection to
jurisdiction, particularly in regard to territorial
or pecuniary jurisdiction, are to be taken at the
earliest possible opportunity and in any case,
before settlement of issues. The law is well
settled on the point that if such objection is not
taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed at a
subsequent stage.

10. Section 21 of CPC, in fact, gives
statutory recognition to the principle that
objection with regard to jurisdiction can be
waived, and that subsequently, on account of
this waiver, the party concerned would be
precluded from taking any such objection.

11. The general law relating to arbitration
is contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, which was enacted to consolidate
and amend the law relating to domestic
arbitration, international commercial arbitration
and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as
also to define the law relating to conciliation
and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. Section 16 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 19962 provides for
challenge to the jurisdictional authority of the
Arbitral Tribunal. In terms of sub-section (2)
thereof, a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not
have jurisdiction should be raised not later than
the submission of the defence. If the excess of
jurisdiction crops up during the proceedings, the
objection should be made at that very time. In
any case, objection on the question of
jurisdiction has to be made before the arbitral
tribunal itself, and the arbitral tribunal has the
power to rule on its own jurisdiction.

12. In the instant case, learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to point out that
the petitioner had raised any objection with
regard to the competence or the jurisdiction of
the Arbitrator during the course of the
arbitration proceedings. The petitioner, having
participated in the proceedings without any
objection in regard to the jurisdiction or any
perceived bias of the Arbitrator, the same would
dis-entitle the petitioner from raising any such
objection in subsequent proceedings.

13. Under such circumstances, we refrain
from interfering in this case and accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.

14. The petitioner may avail such other
legal remedy as may be available to it under
law.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 41426 of 2024

Anand Kumar Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava