Supreme Court: Driving Licence Renewal After a Gap Will Not Take Effect From Expiry Date  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Quash Cheque Bounce Cases by Pre-Trial Inquiry Into Liability  ||  Supreme Court: Passport Renewal Cannot be Denied if Trial Court Has Permitted it Despite Pending Case  ||  SC: Delay in Depositing Sale Balance Does not Make Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Compete Fees Qualify as Deductible Revenue Expenditure under Income Tax Act  ||  Supreme Court: Section 311 CrPC Should be Invoked Sparingly, Only When Evidence is Vital  ||  J&K&L High Court: Successive Bail Applications Can Be Filed Even Without Change in Circumstances  ||  Kerala HC: Fresh Arbitration Notice is Required For Second Arbitration After Prior Award Set Aside  ||  NCLT Hyderabad: Mortgaging Property Without Lending Money Does Not Constitute Financial Debt  ||  Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved