TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenge to interim arbitral orders via constitutional writs limited; petition dismissed, remedies to be pursued against award.</h1> Maintainability of a writ challenging interlocutory arbitral orders is restricted because grievances against interim orders can be canvassed when ... Maintainability of petition - impermeability to challenge under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Rejection of application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to bring on record additional documents - HELD THAT:- The words “under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act”, occurring in para 45 of SBP, on which petitioner laid especial emphasis, do not, seek to delimit the applicability of the passage to cases where the order under challenge is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, as petitioner would seek to contend. They merely underscore the position that all grievances that the arbitral litigant may nurse against any interim order or orders that the arbitral tribunal may come to pass during the course of the arbitral proceedings would always be open to being canvassed as grounds of challenge to the final award that may come to be passed in the arbitral proceedings. To maintain the current and flow of the arbitral proceedings, therefore, the Supreme Court has proscribed, by judicial fiat, challenges to such interlocutory orders midstream. That is what these words intend to convey. Bhaven Construction [2021 (1) TMI 177 - SUPREME COURT] envisages the availability of a remedy under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in rare and exceptional cases, which, essentially, are delimited to two exigencies; the first, where the order suffers from “bad faith”, and, the second, where, if the challenge is not permitted, the party would not be rendered remediless. Where, therefore, a remedy, against the order under challenge, is otherwise available to the party, in rare and exceptional cases and within the narrow confines of the jurisdiction that the said provisions confer, High Courts could exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 - The obvious reason why Bhaven Construction would not help the petitioner is because, even as per SBP, the party is not remediless in ventilating its grievances against the interim order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The remedy would, however, lie against the interim award or the final award that the arbitral tribunal would choose to pass. It would always be open to the aggrieved litigant to vent its ire against the interim order as one of the grounds on which it seeks to assail the interim or final arbitral award, under Section 34. The remedy available to the litigant is deferred to a later stage of proceedings, so as to ensure that the arbitral stream continues to flow unsullied and undisturbed by any eddies that may impede its path - reserving liberty with the petitioner to seek remedies as may be available to him in law at the appropriate stage, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Issues: Whether a petition under Articles 226/227 challenging an interlocutory order of an arbitral tribunal (rejecting an application to bring additional documents) is maintainable, or the petitioner must await the arbitral award and seek remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Analysis: The statutory scheme limits judicial intervention in matters governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, notably Section 5 which restricts judicial interference. Section 37 specifies the limited categories of arbitral orders that are appealable; Section 34 (challenge to awards) and the concept of interim awards under Sections 2(1)(c) and 31(6) provide the primary remedies against tribunal decisions. The jurisprudence recognizes narrow exceptions permitting writ relief only in rare circumstances such as demonstrated bad faith or where the party would be rendered remediless. The impugned order was an interlocutory order under Order VII Rule 14 CPC and not an interim award or an order falling within Section 37; no exceptional circumstances or bad faith was established.Conclusion: The petition is not maintainable and is dismissed; the petitioner must await the arbitral award and pursue available remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless an exceptional case of bad faith or remedilessness is shown.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
