In a recent Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Apna Logistics[1] Hon’ble Justice Mr Vibhu Bakhru, held that even though Arbitration clause would not preclude the Court from exercising its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [1] Apna Logistics Pvt Limited Vs Container Corporation of India Limited (2019 SCC Online Del 8704)
In a recent Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Apna Logistics[1] Hon’ble Justice Mr Vibhu Bakhru, held that even though Arbitration clause would not preclude the Court from exercising its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the courts must be circumspect in exercising such jurisdiction and do so only where an element of Public Law is involved and where actions of the state fall foul of the Wednesbury principle, that is, no reasonable person could possibly take such a decision. When the employer is a Government Institution or a State, parties choose to file Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court seeking indulgence on the ground of violation of Article 14 or 19 and in some cases Courts also have granted certain relief to those petitioners in some cases. This judgment clearly distinguishes the cases where such a discretionary indulgence by a High Court can be justified.
Facts of the Case: In the said case the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to challenge the termination order passed by the Respondent terminating the contract on the grounds that the said termination is illegal and arbitrary. The Contract provided for an Exit clause that enables the Respondent to terminate the contract after giving a 60 days notice in case of “strong business reasons to do so, as determined by its management”. It is also important to note that the contract also has an arbitration clause. The Respondent terminated the contract and the Petitioner challenged the same by way of a Writ Petition on the ground that the termination order is illegal and arbitrary.
Contentions: Relying on a Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Harbanslal Sahnia[2], it was contended that an Arbitration Clause would not preclude this court from exercising its jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the Respondent being a State Institution, ought to have acted fairly and not arbitrarily.
Conclusion: The Court did not reject the above-said proposition and also confirmed that plainly existence of an Arbitration Agreement does not denude this court of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the Court went ahead and examined the scope of Judicial review in Contract matters to decide this case. The Court followed another Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Joshi Technologies International case[3] and held that there is absolutely no bar in maintainability of a Writ Petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. If further held that the discretion lies with the High Court to refuse to exercise such a discretion in the following situations:
Hence, in view of the above said finding, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition and directed the parties to avail the remedies under the mechanism provided under the contract between the parties.
[1] Apna Logistics Pvt Limited Vs Container Corporation of India Limited (2019 SCC Online Del 8704)
[2] Harbanslal Sahnia Vs Indian oil Corporation Limited (2003)2SCC 107
[3] Joshi Technologies International Inc Vs Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 728
Ineligible Arbitrator can be challenged even in Pre- 2015 cases and at any point of time
Supreme Court of India in its recent Judgment dated 04th January 2022 pronounced by the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justices Mr M.R.Shah and Mrs Nagarathna in the case of Ellora Paper Mills held that the mandate of the arbitrator can be challenged at any point of time during the proceedings, in view of Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of the 1996 Act.
The Impact of Limitation Act on MSMED Act Recovery Proceedings
In the realm of commercial disputes, the intersection of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, has been a subject of legal scrutiny. A landmark judgment by India's Supreme Court in the case of M/s Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr has shed light on whether the time constraints of the Limitation Act apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act. This decision has significant implications for businesses within the MSME sector, which is a powerhouse of economic growth and innovation in India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECOGNISES ENFORCEMENT OF EMERGENCY ARBITRATOR AWARD
Prior to 2010, if a party to an international arbitration requires to get an interim order, prior to formation of the arbitral tribunal, it was left with no other option other than approaching the appropriate National Court of the Respondent or the National Court having the jurisdiction over the subject matter covered under the application for interim order.
