The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and highlights the remedy available to challenge the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1. The petitioner before this Court, Indore Development Authority has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015, dated 17.10.2016 by which the application preferred u/s. 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking revocation of mandate of the arbitrator and quashment of proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal was sought.

2. Facts of the case reveal that a contract was awarded to M/s. Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. - respondent No. 4 by the Indore Development Authority on 9.3.2012 for the work of design and construction of railway over-bridge having viaduct including approaches and another work. A dispute arose between the parties and the respondent No. 4 served a notice to the Indore Development Authority to refer the matter for arbitration in accordance with law the provision of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and to appoint Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Garg (Former Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court) was appointed as a third member of the Arbitral Tribunal. Contention of the petitioner - Indore Development Authority is that Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Garg is a very distant relation of the Managing Director of Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd., and, therefore, a prayer was made by filing a Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 5740/2016 for declaring the Arbitral Tribunal as illegal and contrary to the provisions as contained in Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Act of 1996. Another relief was sought for restraining the Tribunal from proceeding ahead in the matter. Lastly it was prayed that the Arbitral Tribunal be directed to refer the matter to Madhyastham Adhikaran at Bhopal for adjudication of the dispute. The petition filed by the Indore Development Authority, as already stated, was registered as Writ Petition No. 5740/2016 and the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on 24.8.2016. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 has held as under:

16. The issues involved in the writ petition relating to private disputes between the parties under a contract and are not in the realm of public law. The first and second arbitrators have been appointed by the parties, following arbitration clause in the contract; the first and second arbitrators in turn appointed the learned third arbitrator as Presiding Arbitrator; that the writ petition has been filed against the decision of the arbitral Tribunal passed under Section 12 of the 1996 Act, which is a complete code in itself and it sets out the procedures to be followed; that Section 5 of the Act specifically prohibit interference by a court of law in matters governed by Part I of the Act except where so provided in the said part. Section 16 (5) of the Act specifically provides that where an arbitral tribunal takes a decision rejecting the plea it shall continue with the arbitral proceeding and make an arbitral award; that Section 16 (6) of the Act provides that a party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside the same under Section 34 of the Act. Section 37 (2) of the Act, which provides for appeals against orders does not provide for an appeal against an order rejecting a plea under Section 16 of the Act, hence, the writ petition, challenging the order passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 12 is not at all maintainable; that arbitration clause is available in the agreement between the parties, hence, respondent No. 2 has appointed its arbitrator, thereafter, the petitioner had participated in the appointment process, appointed an arbitrator and they appointed learned Presiding Arbitrator and at that time he had not raised any objection, thus, the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and that when once arbitral tribunal takes a decisi