The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an arbitrator's award, holding that the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 instead.
The writ petition was dismissed without leave to proceed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2982 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mohd Saleem Respondent :- The Sole Arbitrator And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sanehi Yadav
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents.
This is a writ petition against the award passed by the Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (in short the Act) being Arbitration Case No. KRM 192 of 2018.
The petitioner has remedy of filing an application for setting aside the award under Section 34 of the Act.
The petitioner having efficacious statutory alternative remedy available to him under the law, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.1.2019 SKM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere via a writ petition under Article 226 when the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
Mohd Saleem
The Sole Arbitrator
Abhinava Upadhya
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
