Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Articles 226 And ... vs The Arbitrator Under Nh Act on 15 September, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 21800 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
*******
Kainta Samal .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The Arbitrator under NH Act, 1956
-cum- District Magistrate &
Collector, Sambalpur
2. Land Acquisition Officer &
Competent Authority, NH-55
Project, Collectorate, Sambalpur. .... Opp. Parties
Advocate for the parties:
For Petitioner : Mr. Rabindra Nath Debata, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Heard and Disposed of on : 15.09.2025
JUDGMENT
By the Bench:-
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 30th June, 2025 passed by the District
Judge, Sambalpur in Arbitration Petition No. 7 of 2023 filed
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(for brevity 'the Arbitration Act') is under challenge in this writ
petition.
3. At the outset, Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional
Standing Counsel raised objection with regard to maintainability
of the writ petition submitting that the Petitioner has a remedy of
appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. He also relied
upon the ratio in the case of Serosoft Solutions Private Limited
Vrs. Dexter Capital Advisors Private Limited; AIR 2025 SC
357 (2025 INSC 26) in support of his submission in which
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"14. In any event of the matter when the Arbitral Tribunal
by its order dated 09.10.2024 held - 'that far and no
further', to the respondent/claimant's endeavour 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 Court. 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."
15. It is evident from the above that even as per the quote
hereinabove interference Under Article 226/227 is
'permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e.
that the perversity must stare in the face.' Condition (vi) to
(x) underscores the reason why High Courts ought not to
interfere with orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals for
more than one reason."
3.1 He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment is not
coming within any of the aforesaid conditions requiring exercise
of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
Further, the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Section
37 of the Arbitration Act. Hence, the writ petition being not
maintainable is liable to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Rabindra Nath Debata, learned counsel for the
Petitioner vehemently objects to the same and submits that the
impugned judgment is not an award in the eye of law. Thus, the
provision under Arbitration Act is not applicable. He further
submits that learned District Judge, Sambalpur in the impugned
judgment has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested under law
and has committed material irregularity. As such, a writ petition
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable
before this Court. In the alternative, he submits that if the Court
feels that the writ petition is not maintainable, then the petition
may be converted to an appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration Act failing which the Appeal would be time-barred if
the Petitioner withdraws and files an appeal under Section 37 of
the Arbitration Act.
5. Taking note of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Arbitration Act
makes elaborate provision to assail the order/judgment passed
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Since learned District
Judge, Sambalpur passed a judgment in exercise of power under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the same can only be assailed
in an appeal under Section 37 of the said Act.
6. The Supreme Court in Serosoft Solutions Private Limited
(supra) has laid down principles for interference with an
award/judgment passed under the provisions of the Arbitration
Act in the writ petition. In the instant case, the impugned
judgment has been passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act. Taking into consideration the case law as stated above and
the efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner under Section
37 of the Arbitration Act, we are not inclined to entertain the writ
petition being not maintainable.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being not
maintainable.
8. Dismissal of the writ petition shall, however, not preclude
the Petitioner to avail statutory remedy in accordance with law.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 15th Day of September, 2025//Sukanta
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 16-Sep-2025 17:07:48
