Judicial review under Article 227 can intervene in arbitration matters to ensure justice, particularly regarding the acceptance of amendments and additional documents.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Jain, J.

The present petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 14.04.2023 Annexure P-13 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal of Sole Arbitrator. By the said Order, the Arbitration Tribunal has rejected the application of the present Petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1-A of CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC .

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of application under Order 8 Rule 1-A of CPC , the petitioner who is respondent in the arbitration proceedings sought to bring on record an agreement dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure P-3) which has been executed between the present petitioner, who is respondent in arbitration proceedings and the present respondent No.2, who is claimant No.2 in the arbitration proceedings.

3. It is contended that this agreement between the parties ought to have been filed by the claimants themselves but the claimants suppressed the said agreement while filing the claim before the Arbitration Tribunal and the said agreement is necessary to be placed on record for proper adjudication of all the issues that are actually arising between the parties and an agreement which is between the same parties cannot be said to be not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of claim and rival cases of the parties finally and conclusively. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal ought to have allowed the application under Order 8 Rule 1-A of CPC .

4. It is further argued that the present petitioner had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the written statement filed by the present petitioner before the Arbitration Tribunal. The said amendment sought to incorporate various pleadings arising from the agreement dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure P-3) which has been sought to be placed on record by separate application under Order 8 Rule 1-A of CPC . It is contended that the arbitral proceedings had not advanced to such a stage where taking the agreement dated 15.06.2012 on record and seeking consequential amendment of pleadings and written statements would have prejudiced the other side irreparably. The said two applications were actually filed only to advance the cause of justice so that the issues arising during the course of arbitration proceedings could be decided once and for all between the parties so that an unnecessary process of setting aside of arbitral award and starting the arbitration proceedings afresh could be avoided. In the event the concerned Court, during the course of proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (in short, hereinafter referred to as Act of 1996), comes o a conclusion that indeed the said agreement dated 15.06.2012 did go to the route of controversy involved in the matter and that upon consideration of the said agreement, different considerations would arise affecting the rival contentions of the parties against each other, then there would be setting aside of Award leading to multiplicity of proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the bar as contained in Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be read to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because judicial review is a part of basic structure of Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 . It is contended that the petitioner is a wholly owned undertaking/company of the State of Madhya Pradesh working for promotion of Agro Industries in the State of Madhya Pradesh and also in the business of production and distribution of Ready to eat meals i.e. “nutritious meals” to Departments of the State under various projects in public interest run by various Departments like Women and Child Development Department.

6. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 5 of the A