Karnataka High Court
M/S. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd vs M/S. R.K. Mining Private Limited on 9 October, 2015
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.43133/2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S. OBULAPURAM MINING
COMPANY PVT. LTD.,
KUMARA SWAMY TEMPLE
GANESH NAGAR, BELLARY
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI B.V. SRINIVASA REDDY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR D R, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. LEX NEXUS, ADVOCATES)
AND
M/S.R.K.MINING PRIVATE LIMITED
1-2-49/15, NIZAMPET ROAD, KUKATPALLI
HYDRABAD-500085
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI SHASHIKIRAN REDDY
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-E DATED 13.06.2015 PASSED IN
C.M.P.NO.505/2012 BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL,
ARBITRATOR BEING R.GURURAJAN (RETD).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an interlocutory order passed by learned Arbitrator Mr.R.Gururajan (Retired) dated June 13, 2015.
2. By the order impugned, learned Arbitrator rejected an application dated April 24, 2015, filed by the respondent seeking permission to produce certain documents. Further, the prayer to re-open the arbitral proceeding to afford an opportunity to the respondent was, also, rejected on a finding, inter alia, that it is not permissible to re-open a proceeding when a date has been fixed for passing the award.
3. Mr.D.R.Ravishankar, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, strenuously, argues that there has been serious injustice caused to his client and that the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal could not make its submissions due to reasons beyond its control. It is alleged by Mr.Ravishankar that all the Principal Officers of the respondent -company were taken into custody by the Central Bureau of Investigation and, therefore, they could not adduce their evidence before the tribunal.
4. The Supreme Court of India, in SBP & Company versus Patel Engineering Limited and another reported in (2005)8 SCC 618, held that:
3
"The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is not permitted to intervene in matters arising from arbitral proceedings, particularly, when the orders of the Arbitral Tribunal are interim in nature. From the aforesaid observations, it follows that if it is a case of interim award or a final award passed by an Arbitrator, then the aggrieved party has alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate Civil Court under Section 34 or the High Court under Section 37 of the Act as the case may be, but when an order passed by learned Arbitrator is not in the nature of interim award, although no remedy is prescribed under the Act, that would not imply that the extraordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution could be invoked."
"47. We, therefore, sum up our conclusions as follows:
(i) to (v).......
(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. In view of the above, we are unable to entertain this writ petition.
4
6. Mr.Ravishankar, learned advocate, tried to distinguish the decision in the case of SBP & Company (supra) by saying that the observations were obiter dicta and not of binding nature.
7. It is settled law that even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court of India are binding on us in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
8. Therefore, we are dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. We clarify that this order of dismissal will not prevent the writ petitioner to challenge the order impugned under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other appropriate provision.
9. We express no opinion on the merits of the case.
10. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE bkv