Supreme Court

Kelkar and Kelkar vs. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd.

MANU/SC/0580/2022

04.05.2022

Arbitration

When the statute provides a remedy by way of appeal against the award, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition

The original claimant has preferred the present appeal, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court, in exercise of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the Respondent and has quashed and set aside the award passed by learned Arbitrator and has remanded the matter for de novo consideration.

The High Court has set aside the award made by the learned Arbitrator on the ground that, the procedure as required under Clause 56 of the Articles of Agreement had not been followed. Consequently, the High Court has remanded the matter for de novo consideration.

Against the award made by the learned Arbitrator made under the Act and against an order passed by the learned trial Court making the award a decree and without availing the alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

When the statute provides a further remedy by way of appeal against the award and even against the order passed by the learned trial Court making the award a decree of the court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and ought not to have set aside the award, in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Award Statutory remedy

Share :