Back
Against Orders Is Not Maintainable Rules Orissa High Court
In a significant ruling clarifying the boundaries of , the has determined that judicial orders issued by Commercial Courts are not amenable to under . The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, emphasized that while these orders are immune to certiorari jurisdiction, they remain subject to the High Court’s under Article 227.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a commercial arbitration matter involving and the . Following an , the respondent moved the ), Bhubaneswar, seeking a under . The granted a conditional stay, which was subsequently challenged via a invoking Articles 226 and 227. A Single Judge initially set aside the ’s order, prompting the current appeal.
Legal Analysis and Precedents
The central legal question before the division bench was whether a High Court can issue a against an order passed by a . The bench relied heavily on the 's decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (), which overruled the earlier judgment in . The Court observed that Radhey Shyam established a clear embargo on invoking Article 226 against judicial orders passed in civil proceedings.
Addressing the status of Commercial Courts, the bench held that since these courts are empowered to adjudicate commercial disputes of a specified value that would otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of a
, they possess the
"trapping of a
."
Consequently, proceedings before these tribunals are classified as civil proceedings, thereby barring the issuance of a
.
Key Observations
The High Court underscored the importance of and the authority of the Chief Justice as the "," noting:
-
"Once the power under jurisdiction exercised by each of the Judges is assigned by the Chief Justice, usurpation of power dehors such category of cases would relate to an exercise of the jurisdiction without any authority."
-
"Judicial orders of the are not amenable to under Article 226 of the Constitution."
-
"The has a trapping of a and the proceeding initiated before it, is regarded as ' '. Thus, the order passed by the is regarded as an order of a ."
Court’s Decision and Practical Implications
The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registry to re-register the petition exclusively under Article 227 of the Constitution. This ensures that the matter is placed before the appropriate bench assigned with the roster for supervisory jurisdiction. By reinforcing the distinction between Articles 226 and 227, the Court has effectively curbed the practice of "" through composite applications, ensuring that litigants adhere to the established jurisdictional framework for challenging subordinate court orders.
