ADOR SAMIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PEEKAY HOLDINGS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is moved by the Petitioner challenging an order of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Petition No. 288 of 1998 moved before him under Section 11, sub-section (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) It has been held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 479 that orders under Section 11 of the Act are not judicial orders. The relevant observations are found in paragraph 12 (of SCC): of the Report as under:

(3.) It is now well settled that petition under Article 136 can lie for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India. As the learned Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 (6) of the Act acts in administrative capacity as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision it is obvious that this order is not passed by any Court exercising any judicial function nor it is a Tribunal having trappings of a judicial authority. Question of maintainability of such a petition under Article 136 is decided since long by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Additional Collector of Customs, (1964) 6 SCR 594 .