Writ Petition Cannot Be Entertained To Challenge An Arbitral Award, Statutory Remedy Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Must Be Availed: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh held that a writ petition should be dismissed in limine when there is a statutory appeal available. It held that statutory remedies available under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act cannot be bypassed by the parties.

Facts

The petitioner challenged an arbitral award dated 03.08.2023 passed by the arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The respondent objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 34 of the A&C Act and the award must be challenged under the statutory provisions only.

Analysis by the Court

The Court observed that the award is passed pursuant to a reference under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act and that the arbitration under the NHAI Act is governed by the provisions of the A&C Act.

The Court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola v. UOI (2014) 14 SCC 44 wherein the Apex Court held that the writ would not be entertained when the party has an efficacious statutory remedy. The Court held that a writ petition filed to challenge an arbitral award is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

The Court held that a writ petition should be dismissed in limine when there is a statutory appeal available. It held that statutory remedies available under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act cannot be bypassed by the parties.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the objection and dismissed the petition as non-maintainable.

Case Title: Fulkunwar v. Saksham Pradikari, Writ Petition NO. 6939 of 2024

Date: 03.04.2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: V.A. Katkani

Counsel for the Respondent: Anand Soni, Additional Advocate General

Click Here To Read/Download Order