Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Business India Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Ashok Advani, and Business India Publications Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by a Private Arbitral Tribunal. The respondents were Hon'ble Arvind V. Savant (Retd. Justice), Fursa Mauritius SPV1, and Navigator Capital Advisor Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners had previously filed Writ Petition No. 857 of 2017, which was withdrawn on 24th April 2017 with liberty to take appropriate steps challenging the impugned order. Subsequently, they filed the present writ petition. The court considered the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the remedies provided thereunder. The court observed that the Arbitration Act provides remedies at every stage and for every order, and therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable at any stage of arbitral proceedings. The court held that the parties must exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Arbitration Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, making the rule absolute and disposing of the notice of motion accordingly.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that considering the scheme of the Arbitration Act and the remedies available at every stage, there is no question of entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 at any stage of arbitral proceedings. Parties must invoke the remedies provided under the Arbitration Act. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge an order passed by a Private Arbitral Tribunal, given the remedies available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that considering the scheme of the Arbitration Act and the remedies available, there is no question of entertaining the writ at this stage. The parties must invoke the remedies under the Arbitration Act. Rule is made absolute. Notice of Motion disposed of.
Law Points
- Exhaustion of statutory remedies under Arbitration Act
- Maintainability of writ petition against arbitral orders
- Scheme of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 75
Writ Petition No. 1391 of 2017 with Notice of Motion No. 302 of 2017
Anoop V. Mohta, Smt. Ajuha Prabhudessai
Ms. Soma Singh i/b. Mr. Vivek Sharma for the Petitioners, Ms. Kshama Loya i/b. Nishith Desai Associates for the Respondents
Business India Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Ashok Advani, Business India Publications Ltd.
Hon'ble Arvind V. Savant (Retd. Justice), Fursa Mauritius SPV1, Navigator Capital Advisor Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order of a Private Arbitral Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to challenge the impugned order passed by the Private Arbitral Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by an order of the Private Arbitral Tribunal and sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Previous Decisions
The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 857 of 2017, which was withdrawn on 24th April 2017 with liberty to take appropriate steps challenging the impugned order.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge an order of a Private Arbitral Tribunal given the remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the impugned order of the Arbitral Tribunal was erroneous and sought its quashing.
The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Arbitration Act provides adequate remedies.
Ratio Decidendi
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a complete code with remedies at every stage of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable to challenge an order of a Private Arbitral Tribunal, and parties must exhaust the statutory remedies under the Arbitration Act.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering the scheme of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”) and the remedies so available and provided for every stage/ every order, there is no question of entertaining the writ at this stage or at any stage of such arbitral proceedings.
The parties need to invoke the remedy so available under the Arbitration Act.
Procedural History
The petitioners initially filed Writ Petition No. 857 of 2017, which was withdrawn on 24th April 2017 with liberty to take appropriate steps. Subsequently, they filed the present Writ Petition No. 1391 of 2017 along with Notice of Motion No. 302 of 2017. The court heard the matter finally and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
