Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

Kelkar and Kelkar vs. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd. - (Supreme Court) (04 May 2022)

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

MANU/SC/0580/2022

Arbitration

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved