Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

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