The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 challenging orders passed by an arbitral tribunal, observed that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be entertained against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal when efficacious remedies are already available in the arbitration act itself.
Brief Facts:
The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution has been filed by the petitioner, challenging two orders passed by the arbitral tribunal. The impugned orders allowed an application filed by the respondent to get a complete copy of the contract and final bill and also permitted the respondent to change its name from M/s. Universal Contractors and Engineers Private Limited to M/s. Universal Contractors and Engineers Limited due to a change in its status from a Private Ltd. company to a Public Limited company. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner to recall these orders, which were rejected. Hence, the present petition was filed against that order.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the decision in the case of SBP & Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd., wherein it was observed that orders passed by an arbitral tribunal are not amenable to correction under Article 226/227 of the constitution unless they are appealable under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Further, the court observed that judicial interference is limited in arbitral proceedings so that speedy resolution of the disputes could be ensured. Section 5 provides that judicial intervention is justified to the extent allowed by the act, whereas section 37 restricts the scope of appeal for orders passed by the tribunal to those which are expressly mentioned under this section.
Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, wherein it was observed that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely cautious in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy so that interference is restricted to orders that are passed which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction.
Further, the court noted that the arbitration act is a self-contained code that provides remedies to challenge orders passed by the arbitral tribunal. Like section 34 provides the mechanisms to challenge an award passed by the tribunal, and section 37 provides for the orders against which an appeal can be filed, and thus, a petition under Article 226/227of the constitution cannot be maintained in light of effective remedies already available in the act.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. vs. M/s Universal Contractors and Engineers Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Case No.: Matters Under Article 22 No. 4762 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Puneet Chandra
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
