Refusal To Delete Name Of A Party From The Arbitral Proceedings Is Not The Rarest Of Rare Case To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction : Orissa HC
The High Court of Orrisa has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to delete the name of a party from the arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha has held that to invoke the writ jurisdiction in an arbitration matter, the aggrieved party has to show that it is a 'rare of the rarest cases' and the interference...
The High Court of Orrisa has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to delete the name of a party from the arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha has held that to invoke the writ jurisdiction in an arbitration matter, the aggrieved party has to show that it is a 'rare of the rarest cases' and the interference of the Court is required and the order of the tribunal wherein it has refused to delete the name of a party does not fall with the rubric of rare of the rarest cases.
The Order
The arbitral tribunal dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner to delete its name from the array of parties. The arbitral tribunal held that whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the reference being a mixed question of fact and law, it could not be adjudicated at that stage and would be taken up with the merit of the claim while passing the award.
The Grounds Of Challenge
The petitioner challenged the order on the following grounds:
- The agreement had a specific clause excluding the petitioner from being involved in the transaction.
- The petitioner is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
- The claims are vague and the petitioner is in no way connected with the claims.
- The petitioner would have to unnecessarily deposit the security if an award is made against it, therefore, this is a rare of the rarest cases where the invocation of writ jurisdiction is justified.
Analysis By The Court
The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to delete the name of a party from the arbitration.
The Court observed that to invoke the writ jurisdiction in an arbitration matter, the aggrieved party has to satisfy the test of 'rare of the rarest' cases as laid down in Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. The Court observed that the order of the tribunal wherein it has refused to delete the name of a party does not fall with the rubric of rare of the rarest cases.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: State of Odisha v. M/s. Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd., W.P. (C) No. 8995 of 2020.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
Date: 10.05.2022
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate.