The Writ Not Maintainable Against An Order Of The Arbitrator Dismissing An Application For Interrogatories: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a writ petition would be non-maintainable against an order of the arbitrator dismissing the application for interrogatories. The Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that the arbitration act is a complete code in itself and prohibits judicial interference except where so provided under the Act. The Court held that...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a writ petition would be non-maintainable against an order of the arbitrator dismissing the application for interrogatories.
The Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that the arbitration act is a complete code in itself and prohibits judicial interference except where so provided under the Act.
The Court held that non-availability of an immediate remedy is not a ground to maintain a writ petition and the aggrieved party has the option to challenge such an award under Section 34 of the Act and raised all such objections at that stage.
Facts
The petitioner/non-claimant filed an application under Order XI Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC before the Ld. Arbitrator seeking reply of the respondents to its interrogatories. The Arbitrator held the application to be pre-mature on the ground that it was filed before the filing of the written statement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator dismissed the application.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed a Wit Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ground For Filing A Writ Petition
The petitioner contended that the A&C Act does not provide for a right to appeal against such an order and thus the petitioner has no other alternative remedy against the order except for filing a writ petition.
Observation By The Court
The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SBP & CO. v. Patel Engineering, Deep Industries v. ONGC and Bhaven Construction v. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. to hold that Section 5 of the A&C Act is not a clog on the constitutional powers of a High Court nevertheless the recourse to writ petition would not be readily available.
The Court rejected the argument of the petitioner that they are remediless under the A&C Act. The Court held that the petitioner has an option to challenge the award passed by the arbitrator under Section 34 of the Act.
The Court observed that it is altogether a different thing to say that there is no immediate remedy available to the petitioners than to say that they have no remedy at all.
The Court held that non-availability of an immediate remedy under the A&C Act is not a ground to file a writ petition when the petitioner would have an option of challenging the award under the provisions of the A&C Act.
The Court held that the legislative intent of minimum judicial intervention would be rendered nugatory if the writ petition is held to be maintainable against every order of the arbitral tribunal.
Accordingly, it dismissed the application.
Case Title: M/s V. Kare Biotech and Ors v. Hemant Aggarwal and Anr. CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) NO. 130 OF 2022.
Date: 21.06.2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 12
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma
Counsel for the Respondent: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anaida Kuthiala.