tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post488254510918400794..comments2023-12-23T18:42:30.780+05:30Comments on Practical Academic: A Limited Power of the Arbitral Tribunal to Review: ATV Projects v IOCBadrinath Srinivasanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-74233278159017666102013-06-12T11:01:29.401+05:302013-06-12T11:01:29.401+05:30A seven-judge Constitution Bench of hon’ble Suprem...A seven-judge Constitution Bench of hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s S.B.P. & Co. Vs M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr {2006 AIR 450, 2005(4), 2005(8) SCC 618; Date of Judgment: 26/10/2005} has, inter alia, held as follows.<br /><br />44. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The arbitral tribunal is after all, the creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the arbitral tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.<br /><br /><br />46. We, therefore, sum up our conclusions as follows:<br /><br />(i) to (v).........xxx.......<br /><br />(vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the court only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act.<br />areemosNarendra Sharmanoreply@blogger.com