Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, HARISH TANDON, CJ
Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tarini Prasad Mohanty – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the arbitration agreement and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. (Para 6 , 8 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's reasoning on arbitral proceedings and jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 20) |
| 4. judicial standards for intervention in arbitral decisions. (Para 11 , 16 , 21 , 23) |
| 5. court's final decision and order. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. A piquant situation has arisen in the instant appeal on the scope of a judicial review exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to an arbitral proceeding. The order passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act") is assailed by the respondent herein under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the Single Bench interfered with the said order from which the present appeal arises. The matter is still pending before the arbitral tribunal who is yet to adjudicate the disputes raised by the respective parties and, therefore, it is suffice to say that the Court should refrain from making any observation which would impact
The High Court's intervention in arbitral matters under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to jurisdictional issues, without infringing upon the final authority of the arbitral tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for exceptional circumstances to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227, the limitations on judicial interference in ar....
Doctrine of precedent is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. It does not mean, it was held, that the court was bound by the various reasons given in support o....
(1) Arbitration Act is a code in itself. Arbitration Act itself gives various procedures and Fora to challenge appointment of Arbitrator.(2) A legislative enactment cannot curtail a Constitutional ri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the petition under the Arbitration Act, IAAP No. 106 of 2016, is restored in view of the decision o....
(1) Non-stamping or inadequate stamping of arbitration agreement is merely a curable defect – Arbitrator is duly empowered to decide objection as regards insufficient stamping of agreement.(2) Jurisd....
Writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against judicial orders in civil proceedings; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available for such cases.
Judicial review under Article 227 is not warranted when an adequate alternative remedy exists, particularly in arbitration matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
