The dispute arose from a works contract subject to arbitration under the 1996 Act. The respondent challenged the arbitral award under Section 34, arguing that the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (State Act) applied, making the tribunal jurisdictionally incompetent. However, the respondent did not raise this objection during arbitration or in its initial Section 34 petition and only introduced it later, relying on L.G. Chaudhary (II), which held the State Act prevails over the Central Act for works contracts in Madhya Pradesh. Jurisdictional Plea Timing: The Lion Engineering judgment permits raising jurisdictional objections under Section 34 even if not raised under Section 16, as it is a pure legal question. L.G. Chaudhary (II) created an exception that if no jurisdiction plea is raised before the tribunal, the award cannot be annulled solely on this ground. The Court harmonized these rulings to prevent misuse when such pleas are belatedly raised. Waiver Principle: Failure to raise jurisdictional objections before the tribunal generally results in waiver unless a strong reason exists. Final Decision: The High Court wrongly annulled the award based solely on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court restored the award and remanded the matter for other Section 34 issues.