M/s. Kelkar & Kelkar vs M/s. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Kelkar & Kelkar vs M/s. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd.
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
[NONREPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3479 OF 2022
M/s. Kelkar & Kelkar ..Appellant
Versus
M/s. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.4442
of 1999 by which the High Court, in exercise of Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and
has quashed and set aside the award passed by the
learned Arbitrator and has remanded the matter for de
1
novo consideration, the original claimant has preferred
the present appeal.
1.1 The dispute arose between the parties which was the
subject matter of arbitration before the learned
Arbitrator. On the learned Arbitrator declaring the award,
on an application filed by the original claimant – original
plaintiff vide order passed in Exhibit 10 in Regular Civil
Suit No.1022/1996, passed a decree in terms of the
award made by the learned Arbitrator. By the said award
the original respondents were directed to pay to the
original claimants Rs.12,46,663/.
1.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award made
by the learned Arbitrator as well as the order passed by
the learned trial Court passed as per Exhibit 10 in
making the award a decree, instead of preferring appeals
under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act’), preferred a writ petition before the High Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
mainly on the ground that, before the learned Arbitrator
was appointed, there was noncompliance of Clause 56 of
2
the Articles of Agreement and the procedure as required
under Clause 56 was not followed. By the impugned
judgment and order the High Court has set aside the
award made by the learned Arbitrator on the ground that
the procedure as required under Clause 56 had not been
followed. Consequently, the High Court has remanded
the matter for de novo consideration.
1.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the
original claimant has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and considering the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of
the opinion that against the award made by the learned
Arbitrator made under the Act and against an order
passed by the learned trial Court making the award a
decree and without availing the alternative statutory
remedy available by way of appeal under the provisions of
the Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the
writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
3
Constitution of India. When the statute provides a
further remedy by way of appeal against the award and
even against the order passed by the learned trial Court
making the award a decree of the court, the High Court
ought not to have entertained the writ petition and ought
not to have set aside the award, in a writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In that
view of the matter the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has prayed that in that view of the matter,
liberty be reserved in favour of the respondent to take
further recourse to law under the provisions of the Act
which might have been available against the award made
by the learned Arbitrator as well as the order passed by
the learned trial Court as per Exhibit 10 making the
award a decree. It is further prayed to make a suitable
observation that whatever amount is already paid to the
appellant – original claimant may be adjusted subject to
4
the ultimate outcome and the further order that may be
passed in future.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present Appeal succeeds. Impugned Judgment and
Order passed by the High Court is set aside. However,
liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to take
further recourse to law under the provisions of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 and in accordance with law against
an award made by the learned Arbitrator and the order
passed by the learned trial Court passed as per Exhibit
10 making the award a decree of the court and if such
proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks
from today, the same be considered in accordance with
law and on its own merits without raising the issue with
regard to limitation. It goes without saying that the
amount already paid to the appellant – original claimant
shall be subject to the ultimate outcome of the
proceeding that may be initiated by the respondent.
5
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
May 04, 2022.
6
Comments
Post a Comment