2024 Supreme(SC) 542

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Samir Narain Bhojwani – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.7247 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.16451 of 2023) with Civil Appeal No.7248 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.20359 of 2023) and CIVIL APPEAL NO.7249 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14238 of 2024) (Diary No.40494 of 2023)
Decided On : 08-07-2024

The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with a petition under Section 34. The Appellate Court can exercise the power of remand only when exceptional circumstances make an order of remand unavoidable. The object of the Arbitration Act is to provide an arbitral procedure that is fair, efficient, and capable of meeting the needs of specific arbitration. The object is to ensure that the arbitral proceedings and proceedings filed for challenging the award are concluded expeditiously. The proceedings have to be cost-effective. The supervisory role of the Courts is very restricted.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Remand to Section 34 Court - [MHADA] - [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34] - The court allowed the application for permission to file special leave petition and granted leave. The appeals took exception to the judgment and order dated 7th July 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The factual aspects necessary for deciding the appeals were set out. The dispute began on 22nd March 2012 when the respondent alleged default against the appellant. The arbitral proceedings concluded in the form of an award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 7th September 2018 in favor of the respondent. The appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court to challenge the award. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order of remand to the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge did not consider several issues. The Division Bench referred to an application made by the third parties. Both the parties to the appeal under Section 37 have preferred these cross-appeals.

Fact of the Case:

The appeals took exception to the judgment and order dated 7th July 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The dispute began on 22nd March 2012 when the respondent alleged default against the appellant. The arbitral proceedings concluded in the form of an award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 7th September 2018 in favor of the respondent. The appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court to challenge the award. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order of remand to the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge did not consider several issues. The Division Bench referred to an application made by the third parties. Both the parties to the appeal under Section 37 have preferred these cross-appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The learned Single Judge made an in-depth discussion on the factual aspects and the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties. The Division Bench held that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for de novo consideration. The Division Bench held that the impugned order does not address several issues raised by both parties before setting aside the Award. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the petition filed by the Respondent needs to be reconsidered.

Issues: The issue revolves around the power of the Appellate Court dealing with the appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act to pass an order of remand to Section 34 Court. The Division Bench held that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for de novo consideration. The Division Bench held that the impugned order does not address several issues raised by both parties before setting aside the Award.

Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with a petition under Section 34. The Appellate Court can exercise the power of remand only when exceptional circumstances make an order of remand unavoidable. The object of the Arbitration Act is to provide an arbitral procedure that is fair, efficient, and capable of meeting the needs of specific arbitration. The object is to ensure that the arbitral proceedings and proceedings filed for challenging the award are concluded expeditiously. The proceedings have to be cost-effective. The supervisory role of the Courts is very restricted.

Final Decision: The impugned judgment dated 7th July 2023 in Commercial Appeal no.31 of 2023 is set aside, and Commercial Appeal no.30 of 2023 is restored to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The restored appeal shall be placed before the roster Bench on 29th July 2024 at 10:30 a.m. The parties to the appeal before this Court shall be under an obligation to appear before the concerned Bench on that day, and no fresh notice shall be served to the parties. The High Court will permit the appellants to file an amended memorandum of appeal containing only the relevant and permissible grounds. The concerned Division Bench shall fix a schedule for hearing of the appeal. The interim relief, granted by this Court on 11th August 2023, shall continue to operate till the disposal of the remanded appeal. The appeals are, accordingly, partly allowed with no orders as to costs.