This Writ Petition challenged an arbitration tribunal's order rejecting an amendment to the Statement of Defence. The High Court, relying on SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering, held that parties must wait for the award unless an appeal under Section 37 is available.
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.
63.wpl 3380.18.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3380 OF 2018
Team Interventure Exports (India) Pvt.Ltd. & ors. .. Petitioners Vs.
SBI Global Factors Ltd.
.. Respondent
Mr.Vedchetan Patil, for the Petitioners.
Ms.Sneha Phene a/w Ms.Bhagashree Lembhe I/b M/s.HSA Advocates, for Respondent.
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 08th OCTOBER, 2018
P.C. :
challenged the order dated 27/04/2018 vide which the part of the application of the Petitioner for seeking amendment to the Statement of Defence stands rejected. The Petitioner also challenges the order dated 02/08/2018 passed by the learned Arbitrator on the application filed by the original claimant whereby the permission to file additional documents has been granted.
1/4
63.wpl 3380.18.doc
learned Arbitrator has acted diagonally opposite while rejecting the application of the Petitioner and granting the application for the original claimant. He submits that part of the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no reference in the original Statement of Defence of the ground sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. However, in the similar facts, the application of the original claimant has been allowed.
“The object of minimising judicial intervention while the matter is in the process of being arbitrated upon, will certainly be defeated if the High Court could be approached under Article 227 or under Article 226 of the Constitution against every order made by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate
2/4
63.wpl 3380.18.doc
that once the arbitration has commenced in the Arbitral Tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even at an earlier stage.”
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner however submits
that the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that what is considered in the said judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court was exercise of powers by this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act'). He therefore submits that in the facts of the case when the learned Arbitrator has acted patently illegal, this Court would have powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere. He submits that the issue which arises in the present Petition is not an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, the judgment of the Apex Court can be distinguished.
Hon'ble Supreme Court binds this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme
3/4
63.wpl 3380.18.doc
Court has observed that once the arbitration has commenced in the Arbitral Tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even at an earlier stage. In our opinion, therefore, it would not be permissible for us to entertain any Writ Petition at an interlocutory stage.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.)
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a Writ Petition challenging an interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal at an interlocutory stage.
Whether the distinction in Section 37 appeal rights and Section 11(6) powers allows interference under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd and anr.Explained¶19
(2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 618
Team Interventure Exports (India) Pvt.Ltd. & ors.
SBI Global Factors Ltd.
B.R.GAVAI
M.S.KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
