Case: Chief General Manager (IPC) M P Power Trading Co Ltd &amp; Anr Vs. Narmada Equipments Pvt Ltd

upon either by the State Commission or the person or persons to whom it is referred for arbitration. In our opinion the word and in Section 86(1)(f) between the words generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration means or. It is well settled that sometimes and can mean or and sometimes or can mean and (vide G.P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., 2004, p. 404). 27. In our opinion in Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the word and between the words generating companies and the words refer any dispute means or, otherwise it will lead to an anomalous situation because obviously the State Commission cannot both decide a dispute itself and also refer it to some arbitrator. Hence the word and in Section 86(1)(f) means or. 28. Section 86(1)(f) is a special provision and hence will override the general provision in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for arbitration of disputes between the licensee and generating companies. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion, Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has no application to the question who can adjudicate/arbitrate disputes between licensees and generating companies, and only Section 86(1)(f) shall apply in such a situation. This position has subsequently also been approved by two three-Judge benches of this Court in Hindustan Zinc Limited v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (2019) 17 SCC 82 ; hereinafter, referred to as Hindustan Zinc Limited and NHAI v Sayedabad Tea Company Limited (2020) 15 SCC 161. 11. From the above judgment, it is evident that this Court has held that Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act is a special provision which overrides the general provisions contained in Section 11 of the 1996 Act. Section 86(1)(f) vests a statutory jurisdiction with the State Electricity Commission to adjudicate upon disputes between licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration. The and between generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration is to be read as an or, since the State Electricity Commission cannot obviously resolve the dispute itself and also refer it to arbitration. Section 86(1)(f) is extracted below: 86.Functions of State Commission.— (1) The State Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely:- *** *** *** (f) adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration; 12. Section 174 of the 2003 Act provides overriding effect to the 2003 Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the 2003Act itself. Section 174 provides thus: 174. Act to have overriding effect. — Save as otherwise provided in Section 173, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 13. We refer now to the second argument raised on behalf of the respondent, that the appellant cannot raise an objection relying on Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act in the second application filed by it under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, when it had not raised the same objection in the first application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act or before the Arbitrators so appointed. It is pertinent to note that this argument was rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 30 November 2016 in the following terms 9. I will be failing in my duty if the basic objection raised by Shri Manoj Dubey about maintainability of this application is not dealt with. Merely because in earlier round of litigation, the objection of maintainability was not taken, it will not preclude the other side to raise such objection if it goes to the root of the matter. This is trite law that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by consent of the parties. If a statute does not provide jurisdiction to entertain an application/petition, the petition cannot be entertained for any reason whatsoever. Thus, I am not inclined to hold that since for the reason that in the earlier round of litigation i.e. A.C. No.76/2011 parties reached to a consensus for appointment of Arbitrators, this application is also maintainable. I deem it proper to examine whether because of operation of Section 174 of the Act of 2003, the present application under the Act of 1996 is not maintainable. 14. A similar issue was raised before a three-Judge bench of this Court in Hindustan Zinc Limited (supra), where an arbitrator was appointed by the State Electricity Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act with the consent of the parties. Subsequently, the arbitral award was challenged under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before a Commercial Court, and the Commercial Courts decision was challenged in an appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act where it was held that the State Electricity Commission had no jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator since Section 86(1)(f) refers to disputes only between licensees and generating companies, and not licensees and consumers. When the matter reached this Court, the contention was that the objection to jurisdiction could not have been raised in a proceeding under Section 37 of the 1996 Act once the parties had consented to arbitration earlier. Speaking for the Court, Justice Rohinton F Nariman held that if there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, the plea can be taken at any stage and also in collateral proceedings. He highlighted the well-established principle that a decree passed by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. Such a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties. The above dictum would apply to the present case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. In the present case, the notice for the initiation of arbitration under Clause 12.3 of the PPA was issued by the respondent on 30 May 2011. The commencement of the arbitral proceedings by the invocation of the arbitration agreement would, therefore, relate to 30 May 2011, when the notice invoking Clause 12.3 was issued. Hence, the fact that the PPA and the notice of termination predate the 2003 Act would not constitute material circumstances. Section 21 of the 1996 Act specifies that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute would commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. Hence, there can be no manner of doubt that 30 May 2011 would be the material date, since it is on this date that the notice invoking Clause 12.3 was issued by the respondent to the appellant.10. The first issue which is raised in this appeal is governed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (supra). In that case, the power purchase agreement between the parties was entered into on 30 May 1996, and the notice for referring the dispute to arbitration was sent by one of the parties on 14 November 2005. The other party opposed the notice by stating that the State Electricity Commission had exclusive jurisdiction in accordance with Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act. The Gujarat High Court thereafter appointed an Arbitrator in an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, which was impugned before this Court. Speaking for the two-Judge bench, Justice Markandey Katju settled the position of law in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the judgment, which are extracted below for convenience of reference:26. It may be noted that Section 86(1)(f) of the Act of 2003 is a special provision for adjudication of disputes between the licensee and the generating companies. Such disputes can be adjudicated upon either by the State Commission or the person or persons to whom it is referred for arbitration. In our opinion the word and in Section 86(1)(f) between the words generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration means or. It is well settled that sometimes and can mean or and sometimes or can mean and (vide G.P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., 2004, p. 404).27. In our opinion in Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the word and between the words generating companies and the words refer any dispute means or, otherwise it will lead to an anomalous situation because obviously the State Commission cannot both decide a dispute itself and also refer it to some arbitrator. Hence the word and in Section 86(1)(f) means or.28. Section 86(1)(f) is a special provision and hence will override the general provision in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for arbitration of disputes between the licensee and generating companies. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion, Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has no application to the question who can adjudicate/arbitrate disputes between licensees and generating companies, and only Section 86(1)(f) shall apply in such a situation.This position has subsequently also been approved by two three-Judge benches of this Court in Hindustan Zinc Limited v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (2019) 17 SCC 82 ; hereinafter, referred to as Hindustan Zinc Limited and NHAI v Sayedabad Tea Company Limited (2020) 15 SCC 161. 11. From the above judgment, it is evident that this Court has held that Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act is a special provision which overrides the general provisions contained in Section 11 of the 1996 Act. Section 86(1)(f) vests a statutory jurisdiction with the State Electricity Commission to adjudicate upon disputes between licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration. The and between generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration is to be read as an or, since the State Electricity Commission cannot obviously resolve the dispute itself and also refer it to arbitration.14. A similar issue was raised before a three-Judge bench of this Court in Hindustan Zinc Limited (supra), where an arbitrator was appointed by the State Electricity Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act with the consent of the parties. Subsequently, the arbitral award was challenged under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before a Commercial Court, and the Commercial Courts decision was challenged in an appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act where it was held that the State Electricity Commission had no jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator since Section 86(1)(f) refers to disputes only between licensees and generating companies, and not licensees and consumers. When the matter reached this Court, the contention was that the objection to jurisdiction could not have been raised in a proceeding under Section 37 of the 1996 Act once the parties had consented to arbitration earlier. Speaking for the Court, Justice Rohinton F Nariman held that if there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, the plea can be taken at any stage and also in collateral proceedings. He highlighted the well-established principle that a decree passed by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. Such a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties. The above dictum would apply to the present case.