Bombay HC Conducts Emergency Hearing from CJ’s Residence as Court Staff Deployed for Elections  ||  Madras HC: Preventive Detention Laws are Draconian, Cannot be Used to Curb Dissent or Settle Politics  ||  HP HC: Mere Interest in a Project Cannot Justify Impleading a Non-Signatory in Arbitration  ||  J&K&L HC: Women Accused in Non-Bailable Offences Form a Distinct Class Beyond Sec 437 CrPC Rigour  ||  Bombay HC Restores IMAX’s Enforcement of Foreign Awards Against E-City, Applying Res Judicata  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Bail For Man Accused of Assault Causing Miscarriage  ||  J&K&L High Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation, Citing Violation of Article 16  ||  Kerala HC Denies Parole to Life Convict in TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case For Cousin's Funeral  ||  High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case, Emphasizing Bail As Rule  ||  J&K HC: Civil Remedy Alone Cannot Be Used To Quash Criminal Proceedings in Enso Tower Case    

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