Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36892
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
ABDUL SALAM – Appellant
Versus
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25472 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN
For the Respondents: P.FAZIL SAJU THALIATH, JAYASREE MANOJ, JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE, C.PRABITHA, ANN MARY FRANCIS, R.SRUTHY
Judicial intervention in arbitration is strictly limited under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:This writ petition challenges Ext.P3 award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to lack of notice to the petitioner. The court finds that the award has attained finality as it was not challenged under the Act. It cites Section 5 of the Act which prohibits judicial intervention except as provided therein and references case law from the Supreme Court that limits High Court interference in arbitration matters. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, with rights reserved for the petitioner to seek remedies as per law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to arbitration award and default in emi payments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal principles governing judicial intervention in arbitration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's final decision to dismiss the writ petition. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 award passed by the 2nd respondent under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act' in short).
2. The petitioner had purchased a goods vehicle bearing No.KL-07 BX-9025 by availing financial assistance from the 1st respondent. As the petitioner defaulted in paying the EMIs, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under the Act. Consequently, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 award in favour of the 1st respondent. The petitioner was not served with any notice in the proceedings. Therefore, Ext.P3 award is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
4. Indisputably, Ext.P3 award has been passed under the Act. The petitioner has not challenged Ext.P3 award as provided under the provisions of the Act. The award has attained finality. Even though the writ petition was filed on 01.08.2017, the petitioner has not moved the writ petition till date.
5. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, ‘Act’), postulates that no judicial authority shall intervene with an arbitration proceeding, except as provided under the Act.
6. InBhavan Construction vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd [(2022) 1 SCC 75] , Deep Industries Ltd v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd and another [(2020) 15 SCC 706] and a plethora of decisions, the Honorable Supreme Court has categorically held that, only in the cases of exceptional rarity the High Courts shall interfere in arbitration proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
7. In view of the above exposition of law in the afore- cited decisions, I am of the view that this writ petition is not entertainable.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.
