GOVT OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. P V VIDHYASAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by way of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to assail the orders dt. 11-3-2003 passed by the sole arbitrator SriP. V. Vidyasagar in Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2001 impleading the petitioners as parties to the reference.

(2.) Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings of the- arbitrator. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are that the arbitration reference has been made to the sole arbitrator appointed at the instance of the parties, in pursuance of an agreement executed in August, 1997 on the plea raised as to the non-joinder of parties namely the petitioners herein. The sole arbitrator impleaded them. The main objection on behalf of the petitioners is that they were impleaded without giving any prior notice and opportunity and further they were sought to be added after a lapse of five years and therefore the same is barred by limitation. To consider the objection raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability, it is seen that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has been conferred with powers of superintendence overall the Courts and Tribunals. Therefore, the question which necessarily needs to be gone into is as to- whether the sole arbitrator can be termed as Tribunal as contemplated thereunder. The learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on the definition clause under Section 2(l){d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which reads as under :

(3.) From the above extract, it follows that it is only a Tribunal, which is constituted under a statute or under the State's power can come under superintendence of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, in this case, the sole arbitrator is appointed in pursuance of an agreement between the two private parties and therefore it cannot be called as any statutory Tribunal or conferred with any statutory powers. Thus, the definition clause treating the sole arbitrator or panel of arbitrators as arbitrary Tribunal does not help the petitioner nor can it be equated as such Tribunal created under statute or vested with statutory powers. Thus, it has to be held that the revision as has been under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.