Court Dismisses Petition Against Arbitrator's Order; Limits Judicial Review on Interlocutory Matters

The court dismissed the civil revision petition, ruling that a revision under Article 227 is not maintainable against an arbitrator's interlocutory order. The court held that the arbitrator's rejection of a memo seeking a stay of proceedings was valid and not subject to interference under Article 227. It also determined that Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not preclude judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, but intervention at the interlocutory stage is restricted by legislative policy. Additionally, the court found that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act does not apply to the arbitration proceedings stemming from a hire-purchase agreement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of revision under Article 227.
2. Interference with the arbitrator's rejection of the memo.
3. Jurisdictional bar under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
4. Applicability of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act to arbitral proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of Revision under Article 227

The court first addressed whether a revision under Article 227 is maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the arbitrator. The petitioner and respondent had entered into a hire-purchase agreement with an arbitration clause. The petitioner defaulted on payments, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator rejected a memo from the petitioner seeking a stay of proceedings under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The court held that the arbitrator, appointed as per a commercial contract, does not fall under 'state' or 'other authorities' under Article 12 and is not a 'court' or 'tribunal' for the purposes of Article 227. Hence, a revision under Article 227 is not maintainable.

Issue 2: Interference with Arbitrator's Rejection of the Memo

The court examined whether the rejection of the memo by the arbitrator or refusal to stay the proceedings could be interfered with under Article 227. It held that the arbitrator's decision to reject the memo and not stay the proceedings was valid and not liable to interference. The court emphasized that Article 227 is not meant for correcting all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions within the jurisdiction of subordinate courts or tribunals but is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

Issue 3: Jurisdictional Bar under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

The court considered whether Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which limits judicial intervention, bars the jurisdiction of the court under Article 227. It concluded that Section 5 does not exclude the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. However, the court noted that the legislative policy behind the Act restricts court intervention at the interlocutory stage, and thus, it would not be justified in exercising judicial review or superintendence under these articles in this case.

Issue 4: Applicability of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act to Arbitral Proceedings

The court analyzed whether the statutory stay under Section 22 applies to arbitration proceedings arising out of a hire-purchase agreement. It found that the arbitration agreement was based on a commercial hire-purchase transaction, and the respondent was not a party to the proceedings before the BIFR. The court held that Section 22 does not apply to the arbitration proceedings, as it is not a recovery against the sick company's properties but an action to recover hire-purchase machinery. The proceedings are not for winding up, execution, distress, or similar actions covered under Section 22(1).

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that:
- The revision under Article 227 is not maintainable.
- The rejection of the memo by the arbitrator or refusal to stay the proceedings is not liable to be interfered with.
- Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not bar invoking Articles 226/227.
- Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act does not encompass the arbitration proceedings in question.

---