2017 (3) TMI 1840 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Arbitral Tribunal was constituted for adjudication of the disputes - Tribunal did not entertain the application and proceeded to hear the arguments - HELD THAT - The powers conferred under Article 227 is to ensure that all Subordinate Courts as well as statutory or Quasi Judicial Tribunal exercise the powers vested in them within the powers of their authority. It is the duty of the High Court to ensure that they all act in accordance with establishments of law. Normally the invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution is done when there is no revision or appeal is provided to the High Court. Therefore, the jurisdiction under Article 227 appears to be wider than the power given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute now raised is not for a remedy in public law. It is between private individuals who cannot be equated with State or instrumentalities of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A writ can be issued against the person who has some statutory or public duty to perform. Unlike an Arbitrator acting under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, who though may be a private individual discharges public function, the Arbitral Tribunal, which has passed the impugned order is not connected with a statutory authority or discharge any official duty under a Statute - It is a dispute between two individual entities and the order passed is interlocutory in nature. Although the petitioner herein has stated that he was vigilant in conducting the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, had taken a calculated risk of not filing the documents at the relevant point of time, because of its voluminous nature. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 brings so clearly the object of the Act, viz., encouraging the resolution of the disputes expeditiously and less expensively when there is an arbitration agreement indicating that the intervention of the Courts should be minimal. When the intervention of the judicial authorities is restricted under Section 5, the revision cannot be entertained by this Court, against an order passed by the Tribunal, which is interlocutory in nature. The revision fails as the same is not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in an interlocutory application.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 1: Challenge against the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in an interlocutory application

The case involved disputes between the parties related to a project in Chennai. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted to adjudicate the disputes. The petitioner sought to file additional documents during the proceedings, but the Tribunal did not allow it as arguments had already commenced. The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking to file additional documents. The petitioner challenged this order of dismissal through a revision. However, the High Court declined to entertain the revision, stating that it was against an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in an interlocutory application. The Court emphasized that the power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and should be exercised in cases of serious dereliction of duty or blatant violation of the law.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

The High Court discussed the nature and scope of its power under Article 227. It highlighted that the purpose of Article 227 is to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within the bounds of their authority and in accordance with the established legal principles. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment which outlined the principles guiding the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227. It was emphasized that the High Court's power of superintendence should be used sparingly and only in cases of patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or violation of natural justice principles. The Court also noted that interference under Article 227 should not be for correcting mere errors of law or fact. The judgment further clarified that the power under Article 227 is discretionary and should be exercised on equitable principles, with the main objective being to maintain efficiency and public confidence in the administration of justice.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision challenging the order of the Arbitral Tribunal, emphasizing that the maintainability of such revisions in arbitration proceedings is limited. The Court underscored the importance of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration matters to encourage expeditious resolution of disputes. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the jurisdiction under Article 227, highlighting the principles guiding the exercise of the High Court's supervisory powers.