Every order made by Arbitral Tribunal is not capable of being corrected by High Court.

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the matter of Arbitration between M/s. Ircon International - Sree Bhavani Builders and Chennai Port Trust and quash the order passed on the said proceedings dated 16.04.2006 and consequently refer the dispute to the High Power Cabinet Committee as per the Supreme Court Judgment stated supra and the Office Memo dated 312. 1991 issued by the Government of India.

2. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking governed by Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and is controlled by Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. The first respondent is a joint venture, in which M/s. Ircon International is a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of India and Sree Bhavani Builders, a Partnership firm. The petitioner invited tenders for the construction of extension of container terminal berth at Bharathi Dock during June 1998 in which, 11 persons, including the first respondent participated and that the first respondent was "L3". On the representation of the first respondent, the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways issued a letter dated 22.07.1998 requesting the tender committee of the petitioner to consider the first respondent as it is a Government of India undertaking. The first respondent also sent a letter dated 20.07.1998 requesting the petitioner to consider its representation as per the Government policy circulated by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, New Delhi dated 310. 1997 and the subsequent amendment dated 10.02.1998. The petitioner issued a letter dated 18.08.1998 to the first respondent to match the lowest evaluated offer of L1" which was agreed and the said contract was awarded to it. The first respondent could not complete the work within the stipulated period but completed it after lapse of 14 months 3 weeks, hence, the petitioner deducted a sum of Rs.1,89,56,740/-payable to it. The first respondent claimed Rs.23,69,26,005/-from the petitioner with interest at 18% and raised the present dispute before the arbitral tribunal consisting of respondents 2 to 4 for recovery of the above said amount. The petitioner filed a memo dated 10.02.2006 before the arbitral tribunal that both the petitioner and M/s. Ircon International are public sector undertakings, hence, the dispute to be referred to cabinet committee constituted by the Government of India as per the directions of Honble Supreme Court in ONGC vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (Supp) (4) SCC 541 as well as Official Memorandum dated 312. 1991 of Government of India praying it to refer the dispute to the high powered committee and keep the matter in abeyance till clearance of the dispute by the said committee, which was dismissed by the arbitral tribunal on 16.04.2006. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the arbitral tribunal is contrary to law and devoid of merits; that the Honourable Supreme Court held clearly that whenever a dispute arose between two public sector undertakings, to be referred to a cabinet committee so that unnecessary litigation be avoided, which was not considered by the arbitral tribunal; that the work was entrusted to the first respondent as it is a public sector undertaking, hence, they are bound to go before the cabinet committee; that the judgment of arbitral tribunal is to be enforced as a civil court decree and the tribunal is an alternative disputes redressal forum, that is, a substitute to regular court of law and its judgment be enforced as a civil court decree, hence, the definition tribunal covers the arbitral tribunal also; that the observation of the arbitral tribunal that it not comes under the definition of Tribunal is incorrect; In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision