C.W.P. No.669 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.669 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.01.2010 Deepak Jindal son of Sh. Jugal Kishore ....Petitioner Versus Punjabi University Patiala through its Registrar and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order (Annexure P-9) passed by the Arbitrator that the claim could not be adjudicated without the petitioner paying 10% of the claim made. This is purported to be an interpretation of the contract that provides for such a liability. The writ petition challenges the direction on the ground that the clause in the arbitral agreement itself is contrary to public policy and there cannot be a fetter on a person's right to seek an adjudication by levying a huge burden of valuing the claim and paying a portion of the same before an adjudication is made. Even the clause of forfeiture that the agreement provides, is attacked as contrary to the basic tracts of law. 2. If the arbitral agreement is claimed to be oppressive and C.W.P. No.669 of 2009 -2- a clause in it were to be treated as inoperative, the interim direction given by the Arbitrator should only be challenged through an application to set aside the arbitral award as contemplated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. Sub-clause 2 of the Section sets out several grounds of challenge, which includes that the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. Even an "award" itself has been defined under the Act as including an "interim award" under Section 2(c) and the order passed by the Arbitrator must be construed as an award that is liable for a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner shall have the remedy by recourse to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appropriate relief and it cannot be by means of a writ petition. 3. Reserving to the petitioner the liberty to approach the Court within a period of 30 days from the date of this order to seek redressal under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 15, 2010 Pankaj*