Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Space Wood Office Solution Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two interlocutory orders dated 21.12.2018 and 05.01.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator in arbitration proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent, M/s Anupam Rai Construction. The first order pertained to an application for production of documents, and the second order related to framing of issues. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618, which held that judicial intervention during arbitration should be minimal. The respondent also cited Amar Tea Distributors v. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (2016 SCC Online Bom 2519) and Radiant Infosystems Limited v. The Karnataka State (AIR 2019 Kar 6). The petitioner argued that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be ousted, relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997(2) Mh.L.J. 198(SC)) and Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School v. Vijay Kumar (2005) 7 SCC 472. The Court, after hearing both sides, held that while Article 227 confers wide powers, it cannot be used to interfere with procedural orders passed by an arbitrator during ongoing arbitration proceedings, especially when the remedy of challenging the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Interlocutory Orders - The petitioner challenged orders dated 21.12.2018 and 05.01.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator regarding production of documents and framing of issues. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the limited scope of judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the power under Article 227 cannot be exercised to interfere with procedural orders passed by an arbitrator during ongoing arbitration proceedings, as the remedy of challenging the final award under Section 34 of the Act is available. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by an arbitrator during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Minimal judicial intervention in arbitration
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 227 against interlocutory orders of arbitrator
- Power of superintendence under Article 227 is part of basic structure but cannot be exercised to interfere with procedural orders in arbitration
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 281
WRIT PETITION NO. 316/2019
Shri A.M. Sudame for petitioner, Shri S.C. Mehadia for respondent
M/s Space Wood Office Solution Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Anupam Rai Construction
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging interlocutory orders passed by an arbitrator in arbitration proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge and set aside the orders dated 21.12.2018 and 05.01.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the arbitrator's orders regarding production of documents and framing of issues.
Previous Decisions
The arbitrator had passed orders on 21.12.2018 on an application for production of documents and on 05.01.2019 on an application for framing of issues.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by an arbitrator during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent argued that judicial intervention in arbitration should be minimal and the writ petition is not maintainable, relying on S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and other decisions.
Petitioner argued that the power under Article 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted, relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School v. Vijay Kumar.
Ratio Decidendi
The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to interfere with procedural orders passed by an arbitrator during ongoing arbitration proceedings, as the remedy of challenging the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available and judicial intervention in arbitration should be minimal.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 21.12.2018 and 05.01.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator in arbitration proceedings between the parties.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent to the maintainability of the writ petition.
Placing reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench in S.B.P. & Co. Versus Patel Engineering Ltd. [(2005) 8 SCC 618], it was submitted that it has been held in clear terms that judicial intervention when the process of arbitration was going on ought to be minimal and challenge to interlocutory orders of the present nature ought not to be entertained.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two interlocutory orders dated 21.12.2018 and 05.01.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The Court heard both sides and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
