(1.) The captioned Writ Petitions are materially connected in respect of orders passed by the Arbitrator in proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1996' for short) holding that, the arbitral proceedings are maintainable. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass this common judgment. The predominant contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that from the order passed by the Arbitrator, there is no remedy available to the petitioner and therefore, since the Arbitrator has all the trappings of an authority functioning under a statute, the Writ Petition is maintainable under law. However, on a perusal of sub-sections (5) and (6) of S. 16 of Act, 1996, it is clear that when the Arbitrator passes any order during the pendency of the arbitration in respect of the maintainability of the arbitration proceedings, the remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the order along with the challenge to the award, under S. 34 of Act 1996. In this context it is only appropriate that the said provisions of S. 16 of Act 1996 dealing with the competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction is extracted for discussion.
(2.) The provisions are self explanatory and therefore, the petitioner has a clear remedy available under law. Moreover petitioner has no case that fair opportunity was not provided in contesting the proceedings and therefore, there are no circumstances of arbitrariness and illegality made out to exercise the power of judicial review in the order impugned, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that apart, it is an order assigning sufficient reasons also. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition is not maintainable at this stage of proceedings. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to challenge the order in accordance with the provisions specified above.