Single-judge Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking to challenge an ex parte arbitral award under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that such writs are not maintainable given the specific remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Petition dismissed with the Court refraining from imposing costs.
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.
$~26
Respondent no.1 against the petitioner at Delhi. Reliance in this regard is placed on para 18 of the Jasmine & Company Vs. State of Nagaland 2009 (108) DRJ 722.
between the parties; but that would not alter the status of the Arbitral Tribunal; it will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement; that thus the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal are capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution and such an intervention by the High Courts, is not permissible; (v) that 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; and, (vi) therefore it is necessary 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.
W.P.(C) 332/2016
Page 3 of 4
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JANUARY 15, 2016 ‘gsr’..
W.P.(C) 332/2016
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an ex parte arbitral award is maintainable despite the existence of a remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Whether the parties can invoke writ jurisdiction against orders of an arbitral tribunal despite the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd.Distinguished¶11
Union of India Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 5 SCC 697 · Who else cites this
Jasmine & Company Vs. State of NagalandDistinguished¶13
Jasmine & Company Vs. State of Nagaland 2009 (108) DRJ 722
S.B.P. and Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd.Followed¶15
S.B.P. and Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618 · Who else cites this
Awasthi Construction Co. Vs. Govt. of NCT of DelhiReferred¶17
Awasthi Construction Co. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/5926/2012
Senbo Engineering Limited v. State of BiharReferred¶17
Senbo Engineering Limited v. State of Bihar AIR 2004 Patna 33 · Who else cites this
ATV Projects India Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.Referred¶17
ATV Projects India Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 200 (2013) DLT 553 · Who else cites this
Dhanraj Bajaj and Company vs. Navodaya Vidayala SamitiReferred¶17
Dhanraj Bajaj and Company vs. Navodaya Vidayala Samiti MANU/DE/2288/2014
Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi Vs. Dharamdas V. SanghaviFollowed¶20
Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi Vs. Dharamdas V. Sanghavi (2014) 7 SCC 255 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Krishna Nand Verma
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
