Want to be a
Soolegal Member
Team SoOLEGAL
24 Sep 2020 4:15pm

Under Article 227 a writ petition can only be entertained if there is inherent lack of jurisdiction

0
0
3
0

It was observed by the Supreme Court that petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against dismissal of a petition under Section-16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can only be maintained if there is patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.

The Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee noted in the instant petition before the Supreme Court that the parties to the arbitration agreements are invoking the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the High Courts even where there is no lack of inherent jurisdiction in the matter .

The Court relied on the decision of Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9106 of 2019) which stated that while intervening with the arbitration proceedings, the High Courts should behave in a manner that restricts such intervention to cases where the arbitration orders are issued whereby it is patently lacking inherent jurisdiction.

In addition, the Supreme Court also noted that the High Court should have denied the petition on the basis of "inherent lack of jurisdiction" . The same was thus rejected with the strong imposition of a fine


Tagged: Article 227 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section-16 Justice Rohinton Nariman Justice Navin Sinha Justice Indira Banerjee High Court Supreme Court
Did you find this write-up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Active Members view all

New Members view all