Punjab-Haryana High Court
Central Public Works Department Union ... vs Itd Cementation India Limited on 6 November, 2025
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -1-
136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-7935-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:06.11.2025
CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Union of India submitted that the present revision petition has been filed by invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order which is a procedural order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the application filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in the claim petition before the learned Sole Arbitrator for placing on record some documents has been rejected. He submitted that by way of the impugned order (Annexure P-16), the learned Sole 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 ::: CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -2- Arbitrator rejected the application filed by the petitioner for filing additional documents which has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner because the said additional documents, if not placed on record before the learned Arbitrator, it will cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner-Union of India. He submitted that the petitioner-Union of India also pleaded before the learned Arbitrator that there were errors in the calculation of the claim made by the respondent but the learned Arbitrator has ordered that the claimant-respondent in the present case is given an opportunity to file response to such table which was filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator is a procedural order but the extraordinary powers of this Court can always be exercised, even when there is a challenge laid to a procedural order of an Arbitrator when the order is perverse and in exceptional circumstances. He referred to a judgment of Bhaven Construction through Authorized Signatory Premji Bhai K. Shah Vs. Executive Engineers, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and another, (2022)1 SCC 75.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India.
5. The procedural order (Annexure P-16) passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator which has been challenged in the present case is reproduced as under:-
"Record of Proceedings dated 16.10.2025
1. The Counsel for the Respondent advanced his final arguments and has concluded the arguments. The Respondent also presented a Chartered Accountant, Ms. Anchal Kapoor, who addressed the Tribunal and clarified certain calculation errors made by the Claimant in its pleadings. The application for filing 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 ::: CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -3- additional documents filed by the Respondent is rejected as being belated and attempted to be filed after the conclusion of the arguments of the Claimant. The respondent is only permitted to file a table as part of its arguments restricted to the clarification given by Ms Kapoor during arguments on or before 27th October 2025.
2. The Claimant is given an opportunity to file a response to such table filed by the Respondent on or before 10th November 2025.
3. The Rejoinders shall be argued on 05.12.2025 from 11 AM to 1 PM for the Claimant and 2 PM to 4 PM for the Respondent. The venue shall be arranged by the Claimant for all sessions.
4. The parties are directed to furnish the details of the payment of fees made and balance fees, if any, be deposited on or before 15.11.2025, if not already paid."
6. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the arbitration proceedings are at the fag end and at that stage the petitioner-Union of India who is the respondent before the learned Arbitrator filed an application for placing on record some documents which was rejected. So far as the calculation sheet which was provided by the petitioner is concerned, the learned Arbitrator has also given an opportunity to the other party for responding to the same.
7. During the course of arguments, a specific query was raised to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against a procedural order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, to which he submitted that in cases of exceptional rarity the same can be done and referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaven Construction's case (Supra).
8. It is a settled law that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a self contained Code and the arbitration proceedings arise out of an agreement or a contract between the parties.
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 :::
CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -4-
However, at times if it is so required, then an Arbitrator gets appointed through the process of the Court normally under Section 11 of the Act. The Parliament of India in its wisdom incorporated the provisions of Section 5 of the Act which provide for a non-obstante clause with regard to extent of the intervention by the judicial authorities. Section 5 of the Act which is in the nature of a non-obstante clause is reproduced as under:-
"5. Extent of judicial intervention.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part."
9. Tracing various judicial pronouncements on the issue with regard to the intervention especially when intervention is sought for by assailing directly the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would be just and proper to refer to the various judicial pronouncements.
10. A Seven Judges Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. S.B.P. & Co.versus Patel Engineering Ltd., 2005(8) SCC 618, although was dealing with the issue of Section 11 of the Act and the nature of the order as to whether it was an administrative order or a judicial order but at the same time also observed categorically in para No. 45, 46 and 47(vi) with regard to the minimal interference by the judicial Courts pertaining to Section 5 of the Act. Paras No. 45, 46 and 47(vi) of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 ::: CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -5- Arbitral Tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating its grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the Arbitral Tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the Arbitral Tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal is, after all, a creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though, if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the Arbitral Tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.
46. The object of minimising judicial intervention while the matter is in the process of being arbitrated upon, will certainly be defeated if the High Court could be approached under Article 227 or under Article 226 of the Constitution against every order made by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate that once the arbitration has commenced in the Arbitral Tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even at an earlier stage.
47. We, therefore, sum up our conclusions as follows:
(i) to (v) xx xx xx xx
vi) 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 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 ::: CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -6-
(vii) to (xii) xx xx xx xx "
11. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment passed by a three Judge Bench in Deep Industries Ltd. Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and another, (2020) 15 SCC 706 also discussed the aforesaid issue. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"16. Most significant of all is the non-obstante clause contained in Section 5 which states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in matters that arise under Part I of the Arbitration Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part. Section 37 grants a constricted right of first appeal against certain judgments and orders and no others. Further, the statutory mandate also provides for one bite at the cherry, and interdicts a second appeal being filed (See Section 37(2) of the Act).
17. This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever that if petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. At the same time, we cannot forget that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated by us herein above so that interference is restricted to orders that are passed which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction.
xx xx xx xx
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 :::
CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -7-
24. Mr Rohatgi is also correct in pointing out that the legislative policy qua the general revisional jurisdiction that is contained by the amendments made to Section 115 CPC should also be kept in mind when the High Courts dispose of petitions filed under Article 227. The legislative policy is that no revision lies if an alternative remedy of appeal is available. Further, even when a revision does lie, it lies only against a final disposal of the entire matter and not against interlocutory orders. These amendments were considered in Tek Singh v. Shashi Verma 18 in which this Court adverted to these amendments and then stated: (SCC p. 681, paras 5-6) "5. ......A reading of this proviso will show that, after 1999, revision petitions filed under Section 115 CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders.
6. .....Even otherwise, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only. This is well settled. In DLF Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh 19 this Court held: (SCC pp. 811-12, para 5) "5. ...The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 ::: CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -8- proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally"
and "with material irregularity" as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law;
they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision. and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court does not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power under Section 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify interference on revision under Section 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional District Judge in his manner of dealing with this question. It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeal."
12. Thereafter, again in Bhaven Construction's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aforesaid issue came to the conclusion that there has to be a minimal intervention by the High Court in exercise of powers under Artcles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 ::: CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -9- was also observed that in rarity of cases, the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being Constitutional provisions also remained untouched by the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Reference was also made to an earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar versus Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 that the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be ousted but at the same time the scope was extremely limited and when the subject matter goes to the lack of jurisdiction, then in those rare circumstances Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being untouched by Section 5 of the Act can be invoked.
13. However, it is very surprising that the present petition has been filed by none other than Union of India by challenging a procedural order passed by learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby at the fag end of the arbitration proceedings an application filed by the Union of India for placing on record some documents has been rejected. Such kind of order does not fall in the category of lack of jurisdiction and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it falls in any of the rare circumstances. It is not the case that the petitioner has been rendered remediless. In consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a statutory remedy is available for filing objections under Section 34 of the Act against an award or in certain circumstances where an appeal can be filed under Section 37 of the Act against certain orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. However, in the present case, the impugned order is only pertaining to non-grant of permission by the learned Sole Arbitrator for placing on record some documents and therefore, this Court does not find the present case fit for interference by exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Contitution of India.
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 :::
CR-7935-2025 (O&M) -10-
14. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions of the Act and the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present petition is hereby dismissed being ill-advised. The present petition is also very voluminous and this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner-Union of India has wasted the time of the Court and therefore, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) is imposed on the petitioner, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four months from today.
15. List this case after four months for compliance purposes.
06.11.2025 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 05:02:23 :::