Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tirupati Shopping Centre Premises Co-op. Society Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging an order dated 19 January 2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator had dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which had raised a plea that the Arbitral Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claims laid down by the respondent, Shabayesha Construction Company Private Limited. At the threshold, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Sanjay Jain, raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable. He argued that the proper remedy for the petitioner, if aggrieved by the interlocutory order on jurisdiction, was to challenge it along with the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, (2020) 15 SCC 706. The petitioner's senior counsel, Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, contended that the writ petition was maintainable in light of the same judgment and other subsequent decisions. The Court considered the rival submissions and decided the issue of maintainability. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it, observing that the petitioner's remedy lay in challenging the order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act after the final award. The Court did not delve into the merits of the jurisdictional issue.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Interlocutory Order of Arbitral Tribunal - Section 16, Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Articles 226, 227 of Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged an order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting its application under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which raised a plea of jurisdiction. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court held that the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved by the order of the Arbitral Tribunal on jurisdiction, is to challenge the same along with the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was dismissed as not maintainable, following the principles laid down in Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, (2020) 15 SCC 706. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging its jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that the petitioner's remedy, if aggrieved by the order of the Arbitral Tribunal on jurisdiction, is to challenge the same along with the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition against interlocutory order of arbitral tribunal
- Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
