Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2011
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Saugata Bhattacharyya, J
Smt Saraswati Ojha @ Saraswati Singh Ojha & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
W.P.A. 1561 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Pabitra Pal Chowdhury, Mr. Subham Ghosh
For the Respondents: Mr. Nabankur Paul, Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh, Mr. Amritam Mandal, Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Neenia Rudra, Ms. Srishti Sarkar, Mr. Pretom Das, Ms. Rima Sarkar
The maintainability of a writ petition challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is subject to procedural requirements.
Headnote:In the case of Smt Saraswati Ojha @ Saraswati Singh Ojha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., the petitioners challenge an arbitral award dated 18th July, 2024, asserting non-receipt of the award while the respondent claims the award was duly supplied. The court refers to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and determines the writ petition's maintainability based on precedent opinions in related cases. Consequently, the court dismisses the petition while permitting petitioners to seek remedy as per law. The writ petition stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of non-supply of arbitral award. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability of writ petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. observations on the arbitration act provisions. (Para 7) |
| 4. final ruling and rights to pursue alternate remedies. (Para 9 , 10) |
1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
2. In the writ petition arbitral award dated 18th July, 2024 is questioned on the count that arbitral award was not made available to the writ petitioners.
3. In support of such contention reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 239 and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 496 .
4. Learned advocate representing the respondent no.4 being the claimant in the arbitration proceeding has questioned the maintainability of this writ petition due to non-supply of such award to the writ petitioners.
5. In support of such contention an email letter dated
20th March, 2025 of the arbitrator is placed before this Court and the same is taken on record.
6. On perusal of such email dated 20th March, 2025, it appears that one Rajeev Ranjan Ojha represented the writ petitioners in the arbitration proceeding before the learned arbitrator and copy of the arbitral award dated 18th July, 2024 was supplied to him.
7. In both the judgments relied upon by the writ petitioners observations were made in terms of relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but maintainability of the writ petition challenging arbitral award was not an issue. In view of consideration that remedy lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners in the present writ petition. 8. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
9. However, this order shall not preclude the writ petitioners to take steps in accordance with law in order to raise their grievance before the appropriate forum.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
