https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165141 A writ petition under Article 227 was held maintainable against an order passed by a Civil Judge, Senior Division acting as the Chief Justice's designate under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Because Section 11(7) makes the decision final and the Act provides no statutory appeal against such an order, supervisory jurisdiction was available. The view in SBP was understood to apply to a Chief Justice or High Court Judge acting as designate, not to a subordinate court functioning as designate. The High Court therefore erred in treating the petition as non-maintainable. en-us Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165141 A writ petition under Article 227 was held maintainable against an order passed by a Civil Judge, Senior Division acting as the Chief Justice's designate under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Because Section 11(7) makes the decision final and the Act provides no statutory appeal against such an order, supervisory jurisdiction was available. The view in SBP was understood to apply to a Chief Justice or High Court Judge acting as designate, not to a subordinate court functioning as designate. The High Court therefore erred in treating the petition as non-maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165141