Jurisdiction Under Articles 226 & 227 Of Constitution Cannot Be Invoked Where The Orders Passed By Arbitral Tribunals Are Procedural: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot be invoked where the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals are procedural.

The court was considering a petition that challenged the Arbitral Tribunal's order, which addressed ongoing arbitration proceedings.

The impugned order states, “An email was received after 7:35 p.m. last evening from the Claimant's Counsel, Ms. Akshita Katoch, seeking an adjournment,” leading to the non-issuance of a virtual link for the hearing.

It was noted that objections had been filed with the NCLT regarding the Respondent's application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, with the matter listed for hearing in the near future. The order mentions that “the matter is adjourned through virtual mode,” and directs the Respondent to issue the necessary link for the hearing. The Tribunal also indicated that it would consider “the feasibility of signing the Award, without pronouncing it,” pending the decision on the Respondent's application.

The single-judge bench, Justice Sanjeev Narula, stated that “the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot be invoked where the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals are procedural in nature.”

Additionally, as can be seen from the impugned order, the Arbitral Tribunal has clearly and specifically observed that the Tribunal shall “consider the feasibility of signing the Award, without pronouncing it, which would be kept in abeyance, pending decision on Respondent's application.”

Advocate Mohit Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while Advocate Aaditya Vijay Kumar represented the Respondent.

The case involves ongoing arbitration proceedings where an order was issued by the Arbitral Tribunal after the Claimant's Counsel requested an adjournment late, impacting the hearing schedule. Simultaneously, personal insolvency proceedings were initiated under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which imposed a legal moratorium on all proceedings. Despite the insolvency status, the Tribunal indicated the possibility of signing the award without formally announcing it, prompting a challenge to this order in court.

Cause Title: Lalit Mohan v. M/s National Agricultural Co. Federation of India Ltd.(NAFED) [W.P.(C) 13833/2024]

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Mohit Chaudhary, along with Advocates Kunal Sachdeva, Prakhar Mithal, and Vaishali Shukla.

Respondent: Advocate Aaditya Vijay Kumar and Advocate Akshita Katoch.

Click here to read/download the Order