Judicial review not possible.

1. This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr.Y.K.Rajagopal, in the memo dated 25.9.2001 filed by the petitioner in Arbitration Case R.R/SF/1/2001 dated 21.12.2001.

2. The respondent has entered appearance through M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates.

3. It is the main contention of the respondent that apart from the merits, no revision is maintainable under Art.227 of The Constitution in respect of an order passed by the Arbitrator on a memo and that too in respect of a non statutory arbitration. The Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the Arbitration Clause contained in the Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent.

4. The factual matrix could be summarised briefly: The petitioner and the respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 25.1.1996. As disputes have arisen, the respondent appointed Mr.Y.K.Rajagopal as the sole arbitrator in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 25.1.1996. The respondent filed a claim statement claiming that an award be passed directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.6,56,03,729 jointly and severally together with interest of 24% per annum from 27.3.2001 till date of realisation and in default to claim without prejudice to other modes of enforcing the award be permitted to seize the assets, the subject matter of the hire purchase agreement described in the schedule to the claim and sell the same by private auction and appropriate the sum realised towards the dues and in case the amounts realised is not sufficient, claimant be granted a personal award against all the petitioners to recover the short fall and other consequential reliefs.

5. The very respondent herein has filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and proceeding is pending on the Original Side of this Court. Before the Arbitrator the petitioners herein filed a memo, dated 25.9.2001, which reads thus:-

"MEMO FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

The first respondent submits as follows:

Without prejudice to the validity or existence of the alleged Arbitration Agreement, it is submitted that the Company had become a Sick Industrial Company and as per the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, has made a reference to the BIFR. The said reference has been registered as case No.248of 2001 and the same is pending. (A photocopy of the letter issued by the BIFR is annexed as Annexure-1)

In the light of the above and in light of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the above proceedings which is allegedly for recovery of money cannot be proceeded or continued without the consent/permission of the BIFR.

It is therefore prayed that suitable orders be passed."

6. The respondent filed a counter to the said memo contending that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is not a bar to the arbitration proceedings and that Section 22 cannot be invoked at all on the facts of the case, besides contending that the bar provided under section 22 will not operate nor apply to the facts of this case.

7. The Arbitrator by Order date 21.12.2001 held that there is no bar for seeking the relief before the Arbitral Tribunal and section 22 of the SICA Act do not prohibit taking of any proceedings before the Arbitrator and that too in respect of repossession of hire purchase machineries and that the arbitration proceedings cannot be suspended or stayed. The memo has been in effect rejected by the Arbitrator. Challenging the said rejection, the present revision has been preferred under Art.227 of The Constitution.

8. According to Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the proceedings before the Arbitrator stands stayed statutorily under section 22 of the SICA Act, 1985 and the refusal to stay is arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by material misdirection