BHADRAKUMAR DAS Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first respondent in an arbitration proceedings pending before the sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court in A.R. No. 26 of 2008. After evidence was recorded, he filed an application to recall PW1, the first plaintiff, stating that due to an inadvertent omission PW 1 could not be confronted with documents which had already been marked. By Ext.P4 order passed on 2.3.2013, the sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court rejected the said petition. Hence this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the sole Arbitrator. The Apex Court has in S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr., 2005 8 SCC 618 held as follows:

(2.) It was held that the orders passed by the arbitral tribunal during the course of arbitration proceedings can be challenged only in terms of S. 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was held that the party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal has to wait until the award is passed by the Arbitrator unless he has a right of appeal under S. 37 of the Act, that under S. 34 of the Act, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating its grievance against the award including the in-between orders that have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under S. 16 of the Act. The Apex Court also disapproved the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable of being corrected under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and that such intervention by the High Court is not permissible. In the light of the binding decision of the Apex Court in S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. And Another, 2005 8 SCC 618 , the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.