Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Art 227 and Arbitral Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    Richik Dadhich
    35 views2 pages
    The document discusses whether writs under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution are maintainable against orders passed by arbitral tribunals. It notes that the Supreme Court has held that arbitral tribunals are equivalent to statutory tribunals, and Article 227 gives High Courts superintendence over all tribunals in their jurisdiction. However, some courts have argued this interferes with the Arbitration Act's goal of minimizing judicial interference. Overall, the document concludes that Article 227 forms part of the basic constitutional structure, so writs cannot be denied on any grounds, notwithstanding opposing views from some courts.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses whether writs under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution are maintainable against orders passed by arbitral tribunals. It notes that the Supreme Court has held that arbitral tribunals are equivalent to statutory tribunals, and Article 227 gives High Courts superintendence over all tribunals in their jurisdiction. However, some courts have argued this interferes with the Arbitration Act's goal of minimizing judicial interference. Overall, the document concludes that Article 227 forms part of the basic constitutional structure, so writs cannot be denied on any grounds, notwithstanding opposing views from some courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    35 views2 pages

    Art 227 and Arbitral Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    Richik Dadhich
    The document discusses whether writs under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution are maintainable against orders passed by arbitral tribunals. It notes that the Supreme Court has held that arbitral tribunals are equivalent to statutory tribunals, and Article 227 gives High Courts superintendence over all tribunals in their jurisdiction. However, some courts have argued this interferes with the Arbitration Act's goal of minimizing judicial interference. Overall, the document concludes that Article 227 forms part of the basic constitutional structure, so writs cannot be denied on any grounds, notwithstanding opposing views from some courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Direct application of Article 227(1), along with various case laws clearly show that writs

    under Article 227 are maintainable against orders passed by Arbitral Tribunals.

    In Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Tuff Drilling Pvt.Ltd [(2018) 11 SCC 470], the Supreme
    Court has held that arbitral tribunals are the same as statuary tribunals or the tribunals
    constituted under the provisions of the Constitution.

    Article 227(1) states the following-

    “Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
    territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction”

    Thus, Article 227 clearly gives the power to the High Courts to exercise superintendence over
    all the arbitral tribunals throughout the territories in which it exercises jurisdiction. This
    position is further substantiated by previous judgements of various high courts.

     L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, [(1997) 3 SCC 261]


    The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article
    227 of the Constitution is a part of basic structure, forming its integral and essential
    feature, and cannot be tampered with.
     Raj International v. Tripura Jute Mills Ltd., [2008 SCC OnLine Gau 333]
    Guwahati HC explicitly stated that writ petition under 227 against an arbitral tribunal
    is maintainable in exceptional circumstances.
     M/s Sanwal Coal Carriers v. Western Coalfields Ltd., [2010 SCC Online Bom 1256]
    The Bombay HC interfered by an order passed by an arbitral tribunal after re-
    affirming that powers under Article 227 are part of the basic structure, and they
    cannot be curtailed by Section 5 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
     Unik Accurates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumedha Fiscal Services, [2000 SCC OnLine Cal 328]
    Calcutta HC observed that it would be illogical to hold that arbitral tribunals are not
    subject to Article 227.

    Opposing View:

    In, in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd [(2005) 8 SCC 618], the Supreme Court had
    observed that this practice of the High Courts under Article 227 is unwarranted as the parties
    can appeal under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The object of the
    Arbitration Act is to minimise judicial interference and exercise of Article 227 in such cases
    would defeat the purpose of the Act.

     In CNG Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd., [2017 SCC
    OnLine HP 49], a division bench at Himachal Pradesh HC held that the interference
    of the High Court under Article 227 could not be allowed.
     Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Council of Arbitration [2013 SCC OnLine Del
    4490], Delhi HC held that a writ petition under Article 227 does not lie against non-
    appealable orders passed by the arbitrator during the course of arbitral proceedings. 

    However, these cases have no binding value in Rajasthan HC and merely have an influential
    value to act as a ground for rejecting the petition at a later stage. Article 227 is a part of the
    basic structure of the Constitution and the maintenance of writs under this cannot be denied
    on any ground.

    You might also like