SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor  ||  SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title  ||  SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers  ||  Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO  ||  J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A  ||  Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required  ||  SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law    

Gulab Chand Jain and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. - (High Court of Chhattisgarh) (08 Jul 2016)

Arbitration tribunal empowered to recall order ‘in the interest of justice’

MANU/CG/0103/2016

Arbitration

An arbitration tribunal can exercise its inherent powers to “secure the ends of justice”, the Chhattisdarh High Court said, allowing claims that the tribunal should have reviewed its earlier order instead of suggesting challenge before court.

Previously, the arbitration tribunal had dismissed reference petitions for want of jurisdiction and had held that an order passed by the tribunal would not become bad in law if soon after the law was changed.

The court reiterated the difference between “review” and “recall”, with the former permitting alteration or review of the judgment. Under Section 17A of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 the tribunal was barred only from reviewing the award. The court concluded, “arbitration tribunal is unjustified in rejecting the application for recall of its earlier order…ought to have been allowed in the ends of justice and in the interest of justice.”

Relevant : Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Anr. MANU/SC/0147/2011 M/s. Saluja Constructions v. State of M.P. and another MANU/MP/0279/2002

Tags : CHHATTISGARH   ARBITRATION   ORDER   RECALL   INTEREST OF JUSTICE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved