M.D., Army Welfare Housing ... vs Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd on 8 October, 2003
"84. Having said that, it is indisputable that the exercise
of jurisdiction, by the arbitrator, under Section 17, is
fundamentally discretionary in nature - as contrasted
with Section 16(2) and (3). Judicial interference, with
the exercise of discretionary power, is, classically, limited,
and is even more circumscribed, where the authority
exercising discretion is itself a judicial authority - as
opposed to a purely administrative or executive
functionary. (One uses the expression "judicial authority",
here, to denote the nature - rather than the status - of
the jurisdiction exercised by the Arbitrator, it having
been settled, by the Supreme Court, in M.D., Army
37/42
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 16:24:35 :::
Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P)
Ltd33, that an arbitrator is not a "Court", and does not
exercises judicial functions.) Discretionary orders passed
by arbitral tribunals have, therefore, to be handled with
kid gloves, and protected from injury by any over-
zealous administration, by the Court, of the law as it
perceives it to be. If anything, therefore, the jurisdiction
of the Court, under Section 37(2)(b), is even more
limited than the jurisdiction that it exercises under
Section 37(2)(a) or, for that matter, under Section 34.
The discretionary jurisdiction, as exercised by the
arbitrator, merits interference, under Section 37(2)(b),
therefore, only where such exercise is palpably arbitrary
or unconscionable."