menu close menu


Writ Petition And Arbitration Agreement

The Supreme Court found that a petition under section 227 of the Indian Constitution against the rejection of a petition under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can only be held if there is a perversity in the order leading to an inherent patent defect. Section 16 provides that an arbitral tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction, including the decision… The Supreme Court has established that only these orders can be challenged by a petition for writing within the meaning of section 227 of the Constitution where the intervention of the High Court is necessary, as the decisions rendered are clearly not competent. The Tribunal`s argument may be considered at the threshold of permanent law, namely that if the agreement executed by the parties contains a compromise clause, a party cannot go to the court on the basis of jurisdiction to invoke offences or by requesting a mandamus-type brief to enforce the contractual terms, since the appropriate remedy would be to go to the civil/arbitration tribunal. Section 16 provides that an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. In this case, he dismissed an application challenging the arbitrator`s jurisdiction. Subsequently, the party went to the High Court, which made that decision by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the petition on the grounds that the order had been challenged only 2 and a half years late and that the party had filed the motion at the last minute after the arguments had been closed before the Court of Arbitration. During the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner issued an interim objection that the disputes were not arbiters in light of the charges of criminal fraud and fraud brought by the petitioner and the complaint he filed. The judgment specifies the scope of arbitration jurisdiction. The judgment indicates that the law is a code in its own right.

While the possibility of going to the court under its jurisdiction is open, it limits the scope of the application to issues in which a patent is incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the law is a stand-alone code, providing for a rapid elimination of all cases it covers, therefore, if petitions are filed under section 226 / 227 of the Constitution against the orders made on appeal under Section 37, the whole arbitration process would derail.


Comments are closed.