9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay to the writ Court from a section 16 application being dismissed by the Arbitrator SLP (C) No. 8482/2020 can only be if the order passed is so perverse that the only possible conclusion is that there is a patent lack in inherent jurisdiction. A patent lack of inherent jurisdiction requires no argument whatsoever - it must be the perversity of the order that must stare one in the face. Unfortunately, parties are using this expression which is in our judgment in Deep Industries Ltd. [ 2019 (11) TMI 1632 - SUPREME COURT] , to go to the 227 Court in matters which do not suffer from a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. This is one of them. Instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground stated, the High Court would have done well to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 227 directly against a section 16 application without following the drill of section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Shri K. V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued before us, based on our judgment in Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (2019) SCC Online SC 1602, and paragraph 16 in particular, which is set out hereinbelow: "16. This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever that if petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. At the same time, we cannot forget that Article 227 is a constitutional pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground stated, the High Court would have done well to have referred to our judgment in Deep Industries Ltd. and dismiss the 227 petition on the ground that there is no such perversity in the order which leads to a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. The High Court ought to have discouraged similar litigation by imposing heavy costs. The High Court did not choose to do either of these two things. In any case, now that Shri Vishwanathan has argued this matter and it is clear that this is not a case which falls under the extremely exceptional category, we dismiss this special leave petition with costs of Rs.50, 000/- to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. Pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
