V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Challenging an Arbitration Award, the company which suffered the award, has come up with the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.V. Ramaraju, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/award holder.

3. At the outset, the very maintainability of the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution as against an Arbitration Award is questioned and hence, the same has to be dealt with, before any other aspect could be gone into.

4. It appears that the petitioner and the 1st respondent entered into two Memoranda of Understanding and they contained a clause for arbitration. A dispute arose after the termination of the Memoranda of Understanding with effect from 31-12-2001. Therefore, the 1st respondent herein issued a notice to the petitioner on 08-08-2014 invoking the arbitration clause and calling upon them to have discussions with their General Manager for the appointment of an Arbitrator by consent and also cautioning that if the petitioner failed to respond, they would proceed to appoint an Arbitrator by themselves.

5. On the ground that the petitioner did not respond, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as the Arbitrator and he entered reference.

6. However, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2015 challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator. But the said application was dismissed by the Arbitrator on 18-04-2015.

7. It appears that the counsel for the petitioner thereafter never appeared before the Arbitrator. Therefore, the petitioner was set ex parte and an Arbitration Award came to be passed on 18-05-2015.

8. In the meantime, the petitioner seems to have made an abortive attempt to challenge the order dated 18-04-2015 passed by the Arbitrator in I.A.No.1 of 2015, by way of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But the same was not even numbered by the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the petitioner did not pursue the matter further.

9. It appears that the petitioner attempted to challenge the ex parte award by way of an application under Section 34 of the Act, but the same was rejected as having been filed with a delay beyond the condonable period. Therefore, the petitioner filed an earlier revision in C.R.P.No.5786 of 2015, which did not see the light of the day. However, a petition for execution was filed in E.P.No.54 of 2015 by the 1st respondent/award holder. Therefore, the petitioner came up with the above revision challenging the award, abandoning C.R.P.No.5786 of 2015. It appears that a stay of further proceedings in the execution proceedings was granted in the above C.R.P., after which the first revision in C.R.P.No.5786 of 2015 was withdrawn.

10. The above sequence of events discloses that there is no challenge to the Arbitration Award in a manner prescribed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The time available for challenging an Arbitration Award under Section 34 of the Act has also expired. According to the petitioner, they were taken for a royal ride by their counsel at every stage and that they have also filed a complaint against their previous counsel before the Bar Council and that in such extraordinary circumstances, they have come up invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

11. Challenging the very maintainability of the revision, it is contended by Mr. P.V. Rama Raju, learned counsel for the respondent that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has already settled the issue by holding in paragraph No.44 of its decision in S.B.P. & Co vs. Patel Engineering Ltd., AIR 2006 SC 450that the awards passed by arbitral tribunals are not capable of being corrected by the High Court under Articles 226 or 227. The same view was also echoed by a learned Judge of this Court in Government of Madhya Pradesh vs. P.V. Vidyasagar,AIR 20