Non-claimant before a Sole Arbitrator challenged refusal to frame an additional preliminary issue on the commercial value of expired goods. The Court held the tribunal may frame additional issues at any stage, but the proposed issue was implicit and superfluous, and Article 227 interference was unwarranted; petition dismissed.
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.
$~50
SHAHNAZ HUSSAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Tewari with Mr. Chetan Sinha, Advocate. versus SURESH DHANUKA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ganesh Khemka with Mr. Shreenath A Khemka, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 15:23:58
CM(M) 600/2025 1
framed on the basis of the consent of the parties, it would not ipso facto mean and indicate that no additional issue can be permitted to be framed. 5. According to non-claimant, there is a requirement of framing a preliminary issue to the following effect: -
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 15:23:58
CM(M) 600/2025 2
However, question in the present petition concerns whether additional issue should have been framed or not.
“9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Judicial inference in such type of matters has to be minimal and recourse to Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be under exceptional circumstances when it is shown that such order is absolutely perverse.
10. Reference be made to IDFC First Bank Limited Vs. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4052 whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court has enumerated certain circumstances wherein such type of petition can be entertained. Though, in that case, the challenge was in context of dismissal of application filed under Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act but the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 15:23:58
CM(M) 600/2025 3
observations are equally important in the present context. Relevant portion of aforesaid judgment reads as under: -
"24. While there is no doubt that a remedy under Articles 226 and 227 are available against the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, such challenges are not to be entertained in each and every case and the court has to be "extremely circumspect".
25. Recently, in Surender Kumar Singhal v. Arun Kumar Bhalotia [Surender Kumar Singhal v. Arun Kumar Bhalotia, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708] , this Court, after considering all the decisions, of the Supreme Court [Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd., (2020) 15 SCC 706; Bhaven Construction v. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 75 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 374; Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. EMTA Coal Ltd., (2020) 17 SCC 93 : (2021) 4 SCC (Civ) 341; Virtual Perception OPC (P) Ltd. v. Panasonic India (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 566 and Ambience Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Neeraj Bindal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4023] has laid down circumstances in which such petitions ought to be entertained. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"24. A perusal of the abovementioned decisions, shows that the following principles are well settled, in respect of the scope of interference under Articles 226/227 in challenges to orders by an Arbitral Tribunal including orders passed under Section 16 of the Act:
(i) An Arbitral Tribunal is a tribunal against which a petition under Articles 226/227 would be maintainable.
(ii) The non obstante clause in Section 5 of the Act does not apply in respect of exercise of powers under Article 227 which is a constitutional provision.
(iii) For interference under Articles 226/227, there have to be exceptional circumstances ̻ .
(iv) Though interference is permissible, unless and until the order is so perverse that it is patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction, the writ court would not interfere.
(v) Interference is permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face. (vi) High Courts ought to discourage litigation which necessarily interfere with the arbitral process.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 600/2025 4
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 15:23:58
(vii) Excessive judicial interference in the arbitral process is not encouraged.
(viii) It is prudent not to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.
(ix) The power should be exercised in “exceptional rarity” or if there is, “bad faith” which is shown.
(x) Efficiency of the arbitral process ought not to be allowed to diminish and hence interdicting the arbitral process should be completely avoided."
26. A perusal of the above would show that it is only under exceptional circumstances or when there is bad faith or perversity that writ petitions ought to be entertained.”
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
APRIL 1, 2025/ sw/SS
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 600/2025 5
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 15:23:58
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the arbitral tribunal's refusal to frame an additional issue on market value of expired goods warranted interference under Article 227.
Whether consent-based framing of issues bars framing additional issues later.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Delhi State Consumer Coop. Federation LimitedDistinguished¶9
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1377 · Who else cites this
Kelvin Air Conditioning & Ventilation System (P) Ltd. v. Triumph Reality (P) Ltd.Relied on¶12
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7137 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shahnaz Hussain
Suresh Dhanuka
Manoj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
