Arbitration procedures can't be challenged in High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution

Requests passed by Arbitral Tribunals can't be tested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as the Arbitration Act,1996 is a special Act and a self­-contained code, the High Court held.

The Gujarat High Court as of late emphasized that requests passed by the Arbitration Tribunal during the pendency of mediation procedures can't be tested before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (GTPL Hathway Ltd. v. Vital Marketing Pvt. Ltd).

As expressed in the judgment,

"… thinking about the strategy, object and the arrangements of the Act,1996, a request went during intervention procedures by the Arbitration Tribunal can't be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as the Act,1996 is a unique demonstration and a self­-contained code managing assertion." -Gujarat High Court

In the moment case, the essential inquiry before Justice Bhargav D Karia was: Whether the any request gone during the pendency of discretion procedures under the Arbitration Act­ 1996 can be tested by certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or not?

The petitioner through Advocates Sunit Shah and Yatin Soni contended that such requests are manageable to the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, as the Arbitration Act just accommodated an option in contrast to an instrument of mediation of questions under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.

Then again, Advocate Shivang Shukla fought for the respondent that legal mediation is limited in Arbitration matters, especially given Section 5 and 16 of the Act. It was presented that any cure accessible to the candidate lay in Section 34 of the Act. It was, along these lines, fought that the candidate's test to the arbitral request being referred to couldn't be moved under the watchful eye of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court, thus, inspected different arrangements of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to surrender that this Act accommodated a "total method" as an option in contrast to the ordinary methodology for mediation of debates before Civil Courts under the CPC.

Depending on a large group of case laws by the Supreme Court and different High Courts, Justice Daria continued to administer in the respondent's kindness, presuming that,

".. the request passed by the Arbitration Tribunal throughout Arbitration can't be tested by the legal representative under Articles 226 as well as 227 of the Constitution of India."

-Gujarat High Court

This was all the more so taking into account the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. S.B.P. what's more, Co. v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. Anr. Having governed against such mediation by the High Court.

Besides, the Bench made specific note that the Supreme Court in M/s. Profound Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation has additionally noticed that the object of the "independent" Arbitration Act was to limit judicial intervention

The appeal was consequently excused, permitting the starter issue with its practicality and without going into the benefits of the contest.

"… it would be open for both the sides to raise all the disputes on merits before the fitting discussion", the Court explained.

WRITTEN BY 3rd May 3, 2020



141 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Constitutional Crisis in Maharashtra DeflectedBackground A few months back, the formation of the Maharashtra government by a coalition led by the Shiv Sena along with the Indian National Congress and

The Karnataka High Court has allowed a plea filed by a 32-year-old woman seeking to terminate her 25-week pregnancy, due to anomalies in the fetus. Currently, section 3 (2) (b) of the Medical Terminat