Orissa High Court
Debaranjan Mohanty vs Madhab Chandra Rath & .... Opposite ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1195 of 2025
Debaranjan Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
Miss Samapika Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
Madhab Chandra Rath & .... Opposite Party(s)
Ors.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 28.01.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being a
businessman, has challenged the appointment of Opposite
Party No.1 as an Arbitrator. He has also challenged the
impugned award dated 30.11.2023/ Annexure-5 passed in
Arbitration Case No.747 of 2022.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
impugned arbitral award violates the mandate of provision
under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
which spells out equal treatment to all the parties concerned.
She also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Dexter Capital
Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 1. The paragraph No.14 of the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA judgment is extracted herein below:-
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa "14. In any event of the matter when the Arbitral
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:48:32
Tribunal by its order dated 09.10.2024 held - 'that far
1
Civil Appeal nos.51-52 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.26441-26442/2024)
Page 1 of 3
and no further', to the Respondent/claimant's
endeavor to cross-examine RW-1, the High Court
should have restrained itself from interfering. In order
to justify its interference and extension of time, the
High Court has referred to and relied on a judgment
of the same Court1. Certain conditions for exercising
jurisdiction Under Articles 226/227 are mentioned in
the judgment. Conditions (v) and (vi) of the said
judgment could have provided sufficient guidance for
the High Court to consider whether interference is
warranted or not. The relevant portion of the said
order is as under:
(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.
(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."
5. In such view of the matter, let notice be issued to the
Opposite Parties.
6. Issue notice to the Opposite Party No.2 only by Registered
Post with A.D/Speed Post making it returnable by 17th
February, 2025. Requisites for issuance of notice shall be filed
within three working days hence.
7. List this matter on 18th February, 2025.
Signature
I.A. No.446Not Verified
of 2025
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication 8. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:48:32
9. Considering the submission made on behalf of the
Petitioner and looking to the averments made in this I.A.,
this Court directs that further proceeding in Executive Case
No.100 of 2024 shall remain stayed till disposal of this Writ
Petition.
10. This I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:48:32
