THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2874 of 2011 Dated 11th February, 2011 Between: M/s.D.Muthi Lingam & Guru Venkatesh Engineering Works …Petitioner And Hyderabad District Scheduled Caste Cooperative Society Limited, rep.by its Executive Director, having office at Hyderabad District Collectorate Compound, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sharad Sanghi Counsel for respondents: GP for Cooperation The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare arbitration reference No.111/M/599/SC/2005-2006, before respondent No.2 as null and void ab initio and without jurisdiction. I have heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 for supply of 10 x 7 cft capacity of the concrete mixture machine with tilting Kirloskar Oio Engines without vibration, in pursuance of a tender notification issued by respondent No.1. As per the said agreement, the petitioner was to supply seven numbers of concrete mixture units. The petitioner has supplied five units to different beneficiaries, while a dispute arose in respect of supply of 6th unit to respondent No.5. While it is the case of the petitioner that though it has made the machine ready for delivery, respondent No.5 refused to receive, leading to keeping the machine idle, respondent No.1 appeared to have insisted on refund of half of the amount paid to the petitioner under a purported Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). As the petitioner denied its liability, respondent No.1 has referred the dispute to respondent No.3. It has now come out that respondent No.4 has replaced respondent No.3 as Arbitrator. The petitioner has filed its counter statement to the claim made by respondent No.1 before the Arbitrator, wherein it has raised the plea of non-existence of MoU and consequently, lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Arbitrator to decide the dispute. While the arbitration proceedings are pending before respondent No.4, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the plea that as it has been disputing the very existence of MoU, which allegedly contained an arbitration clause, respondent No.4 is denuded of the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. In my opinion, the writ petition at this stage is wholly misconceived, because the question whether the MoU is in existence or the same is fabricated is an issue, which falls in the realm of disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. Moreover, under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), the arbitral tribunal is empowered to decide on its own jurisdiction and also on the plea that the contract is null and void. If it rejects such pleas, it can continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. Under sub-section (6) of the said Section, an aggrieved party can challenge such an arbitral award by making an application in accordance with Section 34 of the Act. Thus, Section 16 of the Act is a self-contained code, which envisages procedure of ruling over the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the entitlement of the party to question such ruling under Section 34 of the Act while challenging the arbitral award itself. As such, the petitioner shall pursue its case before respondent No.4 in accordance with the above provision and avail appropriate remedies in accordance therewith. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3568 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th February, 2011 VGB