Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
Dhanasekaran M S/o Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
Axis Bank Ltd – Respondent
WP No. 32512 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Antony R.Julian
For the Respondents: Mr.Aiyar and Dolia for R5
The scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited, and challenges to arbitral proceedings citing patent illegality must be directed to the appropriate forum.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petition filed seeking direction to unfreeze bank account - Petitioner aggrieved by the arbitral order directing freezing of account - The court notes the procedure adopted by the arbitrator may constitute an illegality and the necessity to file an appropriate petition for remedy - Liberty granted to approach appropriate forum and seek redress. (Paras 4 and 5)
(B) Arbitration - Scope of judicial intervention - The court is limited in its jurisdiction under Article 226 and may not interfere unless there is a patent illegality evident in arbitral proceedings which misuse the arbitration process. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended that the unilaterally appointed arbitrator passed an order to freeze his bank account without proper grounds, constituting illegal procedure under arbitration norms.
Findings of Court:
The court identified grounds for the petitioner deserving consideration but emphasized the necessity to approach the appropriate forum for addressing such grievances.
Issues: The main issue addressed was the legality of freezing a bank account through unilateral arbitration and the procedure adopted therein.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited and that claims of patent illegality warrant proceedings in the appropriate forum.
Result: Writ petition disposed with liberty granted to file an appropriate petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. illegality of freezing order by appointing arbitrator unilaterally (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. judicial oversight on arbitration processes (Para 2 , 4) |
ORDER This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent to issue direction to the 1st respondent to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner.
2. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in IA No.2056 of 2025 dated 26.06.2025 wherein the 6th respondent has straight away appointed an arbitrator and the Arbitrator has passed an order by directing the bank account maintained by the petitioner in the 1st respondent bank to be freezed. According to the petitioner, this procedure adopted is illegal and the 6th respondent has unilaterally appointed an arbitrator and such an order has been passed.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the grounds that have been raised by the petitioner deserves consideration. However, it cannot be dealt with in a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India . The Arbitral Tribunal will also come within the superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . Therefore, if there is a patent illegallity and the process of Arbitration is being misused for the purpose of freezing the bank account of the petitioner and that too with the aid of an arbitrator, who was unilaterally appointed by the 6th respondent, it will run counter to the judgement of the Constitution bench in [Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI Spic SMO MCML (JV) A joint Venture Company] reported in 2025 1 MLJ 289 . Hence, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before the appropriate forum and work their remedy in the manner known to law.
