Akash Automobiles vs Mahindra And Mahindra Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 2187 Bom

                                                                     33-OSWPL-3823-2022.DOC




                      Arun



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                  WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3823 OF 2022


                      Akash Automobiles                                        ...Petitioner
                           Versus
                      Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd                                ...Respondent


                      Mr Bhushan Walimbe, with Priyal Sarda, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr Aseem Naphade, with Krkupa Joshi & Darshna Kunwar, i/b
                           Khandeparkar Law Office, for the Respondent.


                                            CORAM          G.S. Patel &
                                                           Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.

                                            DATED:         3rd March 2022
                      PC:-

1. The Petition is not maintainable. The sole Respondent is Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, a private limited company. It is not an instrumentality of the State. It is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

ARUN 2. The argument that because the Section 16 Application has RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL been decided against the Petitioner, the Petitioner is left without a Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHNDRA remedy is entirely misconceived on any reading of the Arbitration & SANKPAL Date: 2022.03.04 12:33:40 +0530 Conciliation Act, 1996.

3rd March 2022 33-OSWPL-3823-2022.DOC

3. The Petitioner is at liberty to pursue those remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

4. We have decided this issue by an order and judgment dated 21st February 2022 in Writ Petition No. 3957 of 2021. We considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Deep Industries Limited v ONGC Ltd & Anr,1 as also the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaven Constructions vs Executive Engineer.2

5. It is incorrect to say merely because there is an allegation of an inherent lack of jurisdiction a Writ Petition necessarily lies, regardless of against who the relief is sought.

6. The final submission that a writ lies against Mahindra & Mahindra in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has only to be stated to be rejected. Article 227 is a power of superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, the sole Respondent, is neither a court nor a tribunal.

7. It goes without saying that all contentions in any arbitral proceedings will be unaffected by this order.

(Madhav J. Jamdar, J)                                   (G. S. Patel, J)




1     2020 (15) SCC 706.
2     2021 SCC OnLine SC 8.




                              3rd March 2022