Kerala High Court
K.M.Shemi vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 10 January, 2010
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2012/13TH CHAITHRA 1934
OP(C).No. 1199 of 2012 (O)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
K.M.SHEMI,, AGED 38 YEARS
KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, C/O THESNIMA K.A
12/192- B.P.O, EDATHIRUTHY (WEST), PULINCHODE
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680703
BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
SRI.P.R.RAJA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG)
KOCHI LPG PLANT, AMBALAMUGHAL, ERNAKULAM 682302
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DCS
OP(C).No. 1199 of 2012 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-
EXT. P1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 10-01-2010 BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR BY
THE CLAIMANT
EXT. P2 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE OPPOSITE
PARTY DATED 17-07-2010 BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR
EXT. P3 COPY OF THE MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT BEFORE
THE SOLE ARBITRATOR DATED 19-01-2012
EXT. P4 COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY
TO EXHIBIT P3 MEMO BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR DATED
27-01-2012
EXT. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-02-2012 PASSED BY THE SOLE
ARBITRATOR
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
DCS
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
O.P.(C).NO.1199 OF 2012 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The original petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and set aside the same and allow Ext.P3 memo;
ii. to issue such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner is one among the parties in an arbitration proceedings arising from the disputes with the respondent over the order of terminating his leadership as an LPG distributor. Before the arbitrator, the petitioner has filed a statement, Ext.P3, requesting for a direction to the opposite party to furnish O.P.(C).NO.1199/2012 2 details of the witnesses in whose presence certain annexures were prepared with details of the authority, who had conducted the inspection. Such details were necessary to provide list of witnesses for their examination, was his case. To that application, the respondent filed Ext.P4 objection. The arbitrator vide Ext.P5 order turned down the request of the petitioner to direct the opposite party to furnish details sought for. That order is challenged invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, this Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under exceptional circumstances, even while the arbitration proceedings are in progress, where it is shown that the order passed by the arbitrator is either wholly arbitrary or illegal. But the power vested with this Court which can be so exercised only sparingly, that too under exceptional circumstances, and, also, having regard to the provisions covered by the Arbitration Act, for short, the 'Act' wherein the arbitrator appointed by the court or agreed upon by the parties, without the intervention of the O.P.(C).NO.1199/2012 3 court, is empowered to arbitrate whatever disputes covered by the proceedings, cannot be exercised to test the correctness or merit of the interim orders of the arbitrator unless it is patently shown to be illegal and unsustainable. This Court in Amarjith v. Kamala (2008 (1) KLT 599) has held that it is not permissible for High Courts to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an interlocutory order passed by an arbitrator. Any party aggrieved by the order of the arbitrator who has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act has to wait until the award is passed. True, there could be an exception where a case is made out to challenge the order of the arbitrator invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court satisfying that the order passed by the arbitrator is wholly arbitrary and illegal. No such case has been made out by the petitioner to challenge Ext.P5 order of the arbitrator. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order of the arbitrator invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to O.P.(C).NO.1199/2012 4 challenge the correctness of Ext.P5 order, after passing of the award, if need be in an appeal against such award, if so required, and, provided he is entitled to.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp