Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Udupi Power Corporation Limited, filed four writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging separate orders dated 24.06.2013 passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in A.S. Nos. 40, 41, 42, and 43/2011. By those orders, the trial court rejected the petitioner's applications filed under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking adjournment to file objections to the arbitral award. The respondent, M/s. Simplex Infrastructures Limited, had raised disputes regarding a contract between the parties, and the Arbitral Tribunal had passed an award. The petitioner sought to challenge the award by filing applications under Section 34 of the Act, but failed to file objections within the prescribed time. The petitioner then filed applications under Section 34(4) seeking adjournment to file objections, which were rejected by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner had sufficient time and had not shown any cause for the delay. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court's discretion was not perverse or arbitrary and that no interference was warranted under Articles 226 and 227. The court observed that Section 34(4) does not mandate the court to grant adjournment; it is a discretionary power. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Discretion of Court to Grant Adjournment - The trial court rejected the petitioner's applications seeking adjournment to file objections to the arbitral award, holding that the petitioner had sufficient time and had not shown cause for the delay. The High Court held that the discretion exercised by the trial court was not perverse or arbitrary, and no interference was warranted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-5) B) Arbitration Law - Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Power of Court to Suo Motu Grant Opportunity - The court noted that Section 34(4) empowers the court to adjourn proceedings to give an opportunity to cure defects, but it does not mandate the court to do so. The trial court's refusal to adjourn was within its discretion, and the High Court found no error. (Paras 4-5) C) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference with Discretionary Orders - The High Court reiterated that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is limited and does not extend to correcting every erroneous exercise of discretion unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction. The impugned orders were upheld. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the applications filed under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking adjournment to file objections to the arbitral award, and whether the High Court should interfere with such discretionary orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the orders of the trial court rejecting the applications under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Law Points
- Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- discretion of court to grant adjournment
- power of court to suo motu grant opportunity to cure defects
- finality of arbitral award
- scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
