Case Note & Summary
The Central Railway (Petitioner) awarded a contract to Maharashtra Steel Fabricators & Erectors (Respondent) on 31 December 2001 and 31 March 2002 for extension of railway platform and foot short bridge between Dombivali and Thakurli railway stations. On 2 January 2004, the foot short bridge collapsed during construction. The Railway authorities investigated and prepared a report, and the contract was terminated. The Respondent invoked the arbitration clause on 8 April 2005 raising monetary claims. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 23 May 2006 but did not conclude. A second three-member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 31 August 2018, held meetings on 17 December 2018, 29 December 2018, and 7 January 2019, and passed an award on 4 February 2019. The copy of the award was sent by the presiding arbitrator under letter dated 1 March 2019 to the Deputy Chief Engineer on 8 April 2019. No steps were taken to challenge the award during the limitation period or the extendable period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After the period under the Act was over, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the arbitral award. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The Court heard the parties on the maintainability issue. The Petitioner argued that the award was without jurisdiction and a nullity, and therefore the writ petition was maintainable. The Court held that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bars the writ petition, even if the limitation period has expired. The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy - Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Articles 226, 227, Constitution of India - The Court held that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is not maintainable to challenge an arbitral award when the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available, even if the limitation period for filing such petition has expired. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy bars the writ petition. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge an arbitral award when the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available but the limitation period has expired.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bars the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, even if the limitation period for filing such petition has expired.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not maintainable to challenge an arbitral award when the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 is available
- even if the limitation period has expired
- the existence of an alternative remedy bars the writ petition.
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (10) 18
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 4049 OF 2020
NITIN JAMDAR, MILIND N. JADHAV
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. T. J. Pandian, Mr. Aditya Thakkar and Mr. T. C. Subhramanian for the Petitioner; Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate with Mr. Udaysankar Samudrala for the Respondent
Union of India, through Chief Administrative Officer (construction) Central Railway, Mumbai CSMT
Maharashtra Steel Fabricators & Erectors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an arbitral award.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner (Central Railway) sought to challenge the arbitral award dated 4 February 2019.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner challenged the arbitral award on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and a nullity, after the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had expired.
Previous Decisions
An arbitral award was passed on 4 February 2019 by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. No steps were taken to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within the limitation period.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge an arbitral award when the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available but the limitation period has expired.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the award being without jurisdiction and nullity, the writ petition is maintainable.
Respondent raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to challenge an arbitral award when the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available, even if the limitation period for filing such petition has expired. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy bars the writ petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The Central Railway has challenged the arbitral Award dated 4 February 2019 by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
A preliminary objection is raised by the Respondent to the maintainability of the writ petition.
Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General argued as follows. The award being without jurisdiction and nullity, the writ petition is maintainable.
Procedural History
The contract was awarded on 31 December 2001 and 31 March 2002. On 2 January 2004, the foot short bridge collapsed. The contract was terminated. The Respondent invoked arbitration on 8 April 2005. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 23 May 2006 but did not conclude. A second three-member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 31 August 2018, held meetings on 17 December 2018, 29 December 2018, and 7 January 2019, and passed an award on 4 February 2019. The copy of the award was sent on 1 March 2019 and received on 8 April 2019. No steps were taken to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within the limitation period. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India after the limitation period expired.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34, Section 34(3)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
