PUNJAB AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. versus KEWAL SINGH DHILLON

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 25-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 569 
-,I 
PUNJAB AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. 
A 
v. 
KEWAL SINGH DHILLON 
(Civil Appeal No. 5226 of 2008) 
AUGUST 25, 2008 
B 
• 
[R.V. RAVEEND.RAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
x 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 11 - Petition 
under -
Order of Civil Judge, designated by High Court, 
rejecting the petition - Held: Can be challenged by filing writ c 
petition under Art. 227 of Constitution - Plea that order could 
be challenged only by recourse to Article 136 not tenable -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136, 227. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 -
Scope and 
ambit of. 
D 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal is whether the order of the Principal Civil 
Judge, the designate of High Court rejecting the petition 
under section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act was 
amenable to writ jurisdiction. · 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 
does not provide for an appeal against the order of the 
Chief Justice or his designate made under sub section F 
...... 
(4) or sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 11. On the other · 
hand, sub-section (7) of section 11 makes it clear that a 
decision of the designate under sub-section (4), . (5) or 
(6) of section 11 is final. As no appeal was maintainable 
against the order of the designate ·and as his order was 
G 
made final, the only course available to the appellant 
.. 
-( 
was to challenge the order, even if it is a judicial order, 
by a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of 
India. [Para 6] [573-E F] 
569 
H 
' 
.,., 
·, 
} 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
>-
A 
2. Though the order under section 11 (4) is a judicial 
y 
order, having regard to section 11 (7) relating to finality 
of such orders, and the absence of any provision for 
appeal, the order of the Civil Judge was open to 
challenge in a w'rit petition under Article 227 of the 
I 
B Constitution. The decision in *SBP does not bar such a 
... 
r 
writ petition. The observations of this Court in *SBP that 
j 
against an order under section 11 of the Act, only an 
x 
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution would lie, is 
with reference to orders made by the .Chief Justice of a 
c High Court or by the designate Judge of that High Court. 
The said observations do not apply to a subordinate 
court functioning as Designate of the Chief Justice. 
Article 136 is not intended to permit direct access to this 
Court where other equally efficacious remedy is 
D available and the question involved is not of any· public 
importance. This Court will riot ordinarily exercise its 
\--
jurisdiction under Article 136, unless the appellant has 
exhausted all other remedi_es open to him. Therefore the 
contention that the order of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division 
r-
E 
rejecting a petition under section 11 of the Act could 
only be challenged, by recourse to Article 136 is 
untenable. The decision in *SBP did not affect the 
maintainability of the writ petition filed by Appellant 
before the High Court. [Para 8] [574-G H, 575-A-C] 
F 
*S.B.P and Co .. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 
618 - relied on. 
l'·-~ 
Case law reference 
(2005) 8 sec 618 
relied on 
para 4, 8 
;. G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
5226 of 2008 
)· 
... 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 0.5.09.2006 
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in 
H R.A. No. 230 of 2006 in CWP No. 9889 of 2002 
PUNJAB AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. v. 
571 
KEWAL SINGH DHILLON [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.] 
~ 
Shyam Divan, N.S. Boparai, Rishi Malhotra and Prem 
A 
Malhotra for the Appellant. 
V.K. Jhanji, Jyoti Mendiratta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard the 
8 
I 
:¥ 
learned counsel for parties. 
2. The appellant entered into a collaboration agreement 
dated 23. 7.1986 with the respondent for setting up of a project 
through a company to be jointly promoted by them. Clause 36 c 
of the agreement provided for reference of all disputes and 
differences arising out of or in relation to the said agreement 
to an arbitral tribunal consisting of three members that is one 
to be appointed by each party and an umpire to be appointed 
by the two arbitrators. 
D 
....,· 
3. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the 
appellant by notice dated 19.3.1997 appointed its arbitrator 
and called upon the respondent to appoint his arbitrat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.