Civil Revision No.1192 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1192 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 04, 2008 M/s Vee Kay Oils Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. M/s Vee Kay Oils have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order passed by the Arbitrators. The petitioner filed an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act (for short “SICA”) Civil Revision No.1192 of 2008 : 2 : read with Section 151 CPC for suspending/staying the proceedings before the arbitrators. The plea is that the company had already filed an application on 10.1.2008 before the Board of Industrial Finance and Rehabilitation (“BIFR” for short), which would bar the further proceedings before the arbitrators in terms of Section 22 of SICA. It is pleaded by relying upon some judgments that proceedings in a court of law or a legal tribunal would also mean an arbitration proceedings and as such the present proceedings before the arbitrators should also be suspended or stayed in terms of Section 22 of the SICA. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent- Corporation referred to a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India, 1 (2001) BC 674 (DB), wherein it is held that the expression “Suit for Recovery of Money” in the amended Section 22 of SICA would not include proceedings pending under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrators ultimately have held against the petitioner by referring to the case of Nawab Usmanali Khan Vs. Sagar Mal, AIR 1965 SC 1788 to say that the proceedings under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act are not in the nature of a suit. This order is impugned by the petitioner through the present revision petition. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked if the revision is maintainable against the impugned order. The counsel had sought time to make submission and that is how the case is taken up for hearing today. The counsel very fairly Civil Revision No.1192 of 2008 : 3 : concedes that the impugned order would not be open to challenge by way of a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The counsel has placed before me the case of SBP & Co. V. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618, wherein it is held that High Court cannot interfere in the orders passed by arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal during the course of arbitration proceedings and the parties can approach the court only in terms of Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, scope of appeals and challenges to the decision of arbitral Tribunal is explained in detail as also number of other issues. It is held that once the matter reaches the Arbitral Tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with the orders passed by the arbitrator or the Arbitral Tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the Court only in terms of Section 37 or in terms of Section 34 of the Act. It is also noticed that some of the High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal during arbitration, would be amenable to challenge under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was no warrant for such an approach and that party aggrieved by an order of Arbitral Tribunal, unless has a right to appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. The view taken by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is capable of being challenged is, thus, disapproved. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Section 16(6) appears to have been made to prevent dilatory tactics and abuse of immediate right to approach the court. Civil Revision No.1192 of 2008 : 4 : As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if aggrieved party is given a right to move the court, it would not have been possible to preclude the court from granting stay or interim relief, which would bring the arbitration proceedings to a grinding halt. In this view of the clear ratio of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme, I would have no hesitation to hold that present petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India to impugn the order passed by the Arbitrators would not be maintainable. The present revision is accordingly dismissed in limine. March 04, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE